Multiple Bomb Blasts in London

Von

Earthman wrote:

Thats from the link above and it wasnt tested,was it ? OBL left Belgrade alone as he had bigger fish to fry and in the meantime he let his own brethren be fried by Milosevic leading me to ask if some muslims are more equal than others in OBLs view of the world.

Well the dude is a total fruitcake, what do you expect.

Frank Grimes

Earthman wrote:

I'd still like to know why he didnt suicide bomb Belgrade or Saddam though.

I'm only speculating, but I'd imagine it had a lot to do with the "spectacular" nature of the attacks on Western countries.
Realistically, who would care on the international stage if a bomb went off in either place in the mid 90s, or now even? Look at the effects the bombs in London the other day had, would it have been the same if that was Belgrade? The groups themselves are well aware of this I'd imagine.
Also, like Hobbes said, actually pulling off something like that in Saddam era Iraq would have been difficult at the very least. Added to the fact that Iraq's Muslims are mostly Shia who the Bin Laden type groups would see as being no better than non Muslim Westerners, I'd imagine they just didn't care enough to try.

Frank Grimes

Frank Grimes wrote:

I'm only speculating, but I'd imagine it had a lot to do with the "spectacular" nature of the attacks on Western countries.

That kind of reinforces the view I have here of where his priorities lie.The purpose of the spectacular being to enhance the holy war he needed.As Von says OBL may be a fruitcake but he's very very calculating.

growler

there also was little point going after the Serbs as they were already neck deep in islamophobic genocide provoking plenty of outrage in the muslim world, Bin Laden didn't need to do anything as Milosovic was doing his job for him : radicalising both sides.

Frank Grimes

Earthman wrote:

That kind of reinforces the view I have here of where his priorities lie.The purpose of the spectacular being to enhance the holy war he needed.As Von says OBL may be a fruitcake but he's very very calculating.

I think (in my opinion anyway) it's more to do with taking "the fight", as they would see it, directly to those countries/governments they view as being responsible for the problems in the Muslim world (e.g. support for dictatorships etc.) rather than some sort of "global jihad". Either way, as you say, they are very calculating.

Von

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2239887.stm

Britain must be prepared to pay a "blood price" to secure its special relationship with the US, Prime Minister Tony Blair has told the BBC ahead of talks on Iraq with President Bush.

Don't hear Tony saying a lot about that these days.

Sand

Don't hear Tony saying a lot about that these days.

He didnt say it in the first place - the reporter framed the question, Blair merely agreed with that Britain was prepared to commit troops.

I think (in my opinion anyway) it's more to do with taking "the fight", as they would see it, directly to those countries/governments they view as being responsible for the problems in the Muslim world (e.g. support for dictatorships etc.) rather than some sort of "global jihad". Either way, as you say, they are very calculating.

Which would imply the west in general seeing as they view western toxification of their culture with such ideas as female emancipation as being the true root of Islamic dystopia.

If youre implying theres some sort of targeted selection of countries then its pretty pathetic considering the London bombings killed British, Vietnamese, Polish, Muslims, Black, White, Asian, Men, Women, Pro War and Anti War supporters alike.

These guys dont care - they hate everything we value. And the style of the attacks - designed deliberately to kill the maximum amount of random civillians demonstrates theres no "good" westie and "bad" westie in their thinkings. They hate us all equally. Even that Irish-Iraqi aid worker didnt get any favours from them. And they hated us long before the Iraq war - 9/11 came before that as I recall, and there is a string of attempts by them to bomb the WTC prior to that. Let alone the tirade of attacks on tourists in places like Egypt.

And the reason why Al-Queda goes after the US and its allies and not the likes of Milosevic or Saddam is because he doesnt give a toss about muslims living or dying per se - his bombings have killed many of them and his allies are doing their best to slaughter Shias and Kurds in Iraq to try and spark a ethnically defined civil war - but rather the degradation of pure Islamic culture by the evil west, personified by the seductive evil US. Milosevic or Saddam cant threaten his belief system, whereby the home of McDonalds, Coca Cola and liberalism can.

rsynnott

Ironically, the US again and again gives Osama EXACTLY what he wants; they curtail the rights of their own citizens and destroy one of the more secular middle-eastern states. Hopefully, Blair won't do the same.

Frank Grimes

Sand wrote:

If youre implying theres some sort of targeted selection of countries then its pretty pathetic considering the London bombings killed British, Vietnamese, Polish, Muslims, Black, White, Asian, Men, Women, Pro War and Anti War supporters alike.

I wasn't implying that, it's pretty obvious that if you set off bombs in a city like London you're going to kill or injure people of all nationalities, races, religions etc.
What I was saying was that I don't believe the one and only reason that motives these groups is hatred of the West/Western Culture.
You only need to read Bin Laden's speeches (this one for example) to see what he claims he (and I can only assume the groups that are "inspired" by him) has the problem with, and it's a little more than soley "our way of life".

jman0

Sand wrote:

If youre implying theres some sort of targeted selection of countries then its pretty pathetic considering the London bombings killed British, Vietnamese, Polish, Muslims, Black, White, Asian, Men, Women, Pro War and Anti War supporters alike.

How do you know? I thought they didn't release the names of the victims yet.

Sand wrote:

They hate us all equally. Even that Irish-Iraqi aid worker didnt get any favours from them. And they hated us long before the Iraq war - 9/11 came before that as I recall, and there is a string of attempts by them to bomb the WTC prior to that. Let alone the tirade of attacks on tourists in places like Egypt..

Then how could that yank fella John Walker Lindh join their ranks, if they hate us all equally?

Sand wrote:

his bombings have killed many of them and his allies are doing their best to slaughter Shias and Kurds in Iraq to try and spark a ethnically defined civil war

I dunno Sand, but it is the Kurds that are a support base for Al'Q, not the Sunni muslims in Iraq.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/08/21/iraq.alqaeda/
I dunno is Al'Q trying to instigate civil war in Iraq. More likely i suspect: Sunni insurgents, you know former Bath party loyalists, Saddam supporters, former Republican Guards.

bonkey

Sand wrote:

If youre implying theres some sort of targeted selection of countries then its pretty pathetic

Why? I would have said it was pretty clear which country was attacked.

The bombs didn't go off near any borders, nor in multiple nations at once. There is no shadow of a question as to which country was attacked.

Or do you also think, Sand, that the destruction of the WTC was not aimed at America, given the international nature of the people killed?

And - if thats the case - does that mean that because non-Iraqis and non-Saddam-supporters have been killed along teh way in Iraq that America wasn't actually targetting either Iraq or Saddam???

And the style of the attacks - designed deliberately to kill the maximum amount of random civillians

You think? Given the amount of high-explosive used, and the times/routes chosen, I'd say that they must be pretty stupid people then, because they could easily have managed a higher head-count.

and there is a string of attempts by them to bomb the WTC prior to that.

And a string of attacks against other US assets, but clearly because of the international nature of the people who would end up dead it wasn't America which was being targetted. Right?

Milosevic or Saddam cant threaten his belief system, whereby the home of McDonalds, Coca Cola and liberalism can.

But its not that we threaten what these people believe in...its that they hate us. Right? After all...they must know that what they believe in is wrong. Why else would they believe in it.

If they hate us, maybe we should be asking what we have done to deserve such hatred, and why the nature of this hatred has changed so drastically within our lifetimes.

Or we can continue believing that if we beat them down enough they'll stop hating us and just stay doing what we're doing. Thats bound to work.

jc

Captain Trips

All I'll say on the topic, is that the bombing on July 7th in London is exactly 3 Years, 9 Months and 27 Days since Sept. 11th.

3x3x3. Cryptic.

latest news on this is that one person was arrested in Yorkshire.
Apparently 4 bombers were blown up by their own bombs and personal documents found on them led to a swoop on 6 houses.
It's as if they wanted the police to know.

www.bbc.co.uk/news

pat kenny

Captain Trips wrote:

All I'll say on the topic, is that the bombing on July 7th in London is exactly 3 Years, 9 Months and 27 Days since Sept. 11th.

3x3x3. Cryptic.

Finding patterns where none exist. There seems to be a real skill to it dosent there.
See if you can fit any more strange and coincidental number to match dates from September 11th to other bombings you could make a pointless game out of it.

AmenToThat

Earthman wrote:

latest news on this is that one person was arrested in Yorkshire.
Apparently 4 bombers were blown up by their own bombs and personal documents found on them led to a swoop on 6 houses.
It's as if they wanted the police to know.

www.bbc.co.uk/news

It appears that the bombers were all young British born men (although this hasnt yet been confirmed) and that the bombings were 'suicide bombings'.
While I still have great sympathy for the victims of these horrible attacks and their loved ones left behind and indeed the familes of the bombers who are now greiving and will have to carry the stigma of what has happened with them much of my initial sympathy for 'Britain' has now evaporated.

I really thought there would finally be some soul searching on the question of British involvement and complicity with the policies of the Bush administration with regards to the middle east but if anything even the small level of debate that papers like the Guardian tried to energize is now gone.
There has been much talk about not bowing to terrorism and the British 'stiff upper lip' and the whole population seems to have gone into denial that the events of Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Graib and Guantamino Bay might have had anything to do with it.

Its hard to imagen that there wont be more such attacks in the future and its my opinion that not only must Blair shoulder much of the responsibility for any future attacks but that the British people and media in general are now becoming part of the problem instead of part of the solution.
Burying your head in the sand and calling for tougher anti terrorist legislation will not cure the underlying reasons of why young men are willing to blow themselevs and many innocents to kingdom come.

SkepticOne

AmenToThat wrote:

I really thought there would finally be some soul searching on the question of British involvement and complicity with the policies of the Bush administration with regards to the middle east but if anything even the small level of debate that papers like the Guardian tried to energize is now gone.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of British foreign policy, it would be madness to indulge in public soul searching in the immediate aftermath of an attack. This is just on the purely pragmatic level of not wanting to encourage further attacks. It would of course also be political suicide too for Blair to do this.

The idea that the UK is in some way for these attacks, imo, is a bit dodgy. The people that planned and executed the attacks are responsible for what they did.

To say that Blair or the UK is responsible is to take away responsibility from those who carried out the attacks. It is like saying that Osama Bin Laden is responsible for the bombing of both the WTC and Kabul since the Kabul bombing was done in retaliation for the WTC bombing.

Each side is responsible for its actions.

AmenToThat

SkepticOne wrote:

Whatever the rights and wrongs of British foreign policy, it would be madness to indulge in public soul searching in the immediate aftermath of an attack.

It would as the people might come to the conclusion that the events I mentioned above might have something to do with the decision of the bombers and lead to a change in foreign policy. Thankfully for Blair this hasnt happened however.

SkepticOne wrote:

This is just on the purely pragmatic level of not wanting to encourage further attacks. It would of course also be political suicide too for Blair to do this.

Isnt that part of the problem, the truth already has been sacraficed by Blair and Bush to save their necks.

SkepticOne wrote:

the he idea that the UK is in some way for these attacks, imo, is a bit dodgy. The people that planned and executed the attacks are responsible for what they did.

They are but Britain and the US are responsible for giving them to motivation to do what they did and so should shoulder some of the responsibility, which they are not. Now the British public seem to be buying into this dilussion that the only question to be asked is how to stop the bombers at the expense of also asking what motivates the bombers.

growler

AmenToThat wrote:

.


There has been much talk about not bowing to terrorism and the British 'stiff upper lip' and the whole population seems to have gone into denial that the events of Iraq, Afghanistan, Abu Graib and Guantamino Bay might have had anything to do with it.

.

which would be a good point if the suicide bombers were from Afghanistan or Iraq or even anywhere in the Middle East , but they weren't, they were British , last time I looked the Bristish weren't bombing Yorkshire's Muslims or invading Pakistan ( they were apparently of Pakistani decent). Why would British foreign policy motivate it's own citizens to kill their fellow citizens ?

While i can understand how they might sympathise with fellow Muslims, i am shocked that they would take it any further than a general western sympathy for the Palestinians etc or the anti-war setiments expressed by a large percentage of the UK. They have no right to claim that the events in the Mid East have anything to do with their motivation for killing Londoners.

Having such an enemy within one's borders is very very worrying for the security services, it will mean more security measures

Sand

What I was saying was that I don't believe the one and only reason that motives these groups is hatred of the West/Western Culture.

Too bad, thats the reality. They were either bombing and killing us before -or trying to-the Iraq War, even before 9/11. Attacks on tourists in Eygpt, attacks that killed hundreds in Nairobi, foiled attempts to bomb the WTC back in the 90s, attacks on the French metro back in the 90s.

Now, unless they were attempting to get their retaliation in first, the Iraq war is not the cause of their hate....

You only need to read Bin Laden's speeches (this one for example) to see what he claims he (and I can only assume the groups that are "inspired" by him) has the problem with, and it's a little more than soley "our way of life".

(2) The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

(a) We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest.

We call you to all of this that you may be freed from that which you have become caught up in; that you may be freed from the deceptive lies that you are a great nation, that your leaders spread amongst you to conceal from you the despicable state to which you have reached.

(b) It is saddening to tell you that you are the worst civilization witnessed by the history of mankind:

(i) You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?

(ii) You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against.

(iii) You are a nation that permits the production, trading and usage of intoxicants. You also permit drugs, and only forbid the trade of them, even though your nation is the largest consumer of them.

(iv) You are a nation that permits acts of immorality, and you consider them to be pillars of personal freedom. You have continued to sink down this abyss from level to level until incest has spread amongst you, in the face of which neither your sense of honour nor your laws object.

(v) You are a nation that permits gambling in its all forms. The companies practice this as well, resulting in the investments becoming active and the criminals becoming rich.

(vi) You are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.

(vii) You are a nation that practices the trade of sex in all its forms, directly and indirectly. Giant corporations and establishments are established on this, under the name of art, entertainment, tourism and freedom, and other deceptive names you attribute to it.

(viii) And because of all this, you have been described in history as a nation that spreads diseases that were unknown to man in the past. Go ahead and boast to the nations of man, that you brought them AIDS as a Satanic American Invention.

And lets face it, if hes got such a big problem with the governments in the middle east, why didnt *he* liberate Iraq? If hes got such a big hardon for saving Muslim lives why are his followers slaughtering Shias in Iraq? If hes got such a textbook memory of how the US has wronged Islamic peoples and supported their oppressors how has their support of him and his buddies in Afghanistan slipped his mind? Or the several US interventions in the Balkans against a regime that carried out atrocities against Muslims like Srebinica?

Bin Laden gives a feck about Palestine as much as the IRA cared about Catholic civil rights. Its a useful recruiting tool - little else, not his end goal. Now unless youre willing to criminalise homosexuality, lock up women, stop gambling, stop banks giving out loans, stop civil laws and replace them with Sharia law we will always be a corrupt hateful place that is corrupting the Islamic world, and thus always Islams enemy in the eyes of these whackos.

And this view isnt new. Bin Laden takes inspiration from an Egyptian education official, by the name of Qtub, from the 1950s who travelled to the US on an exchange programme and wrote a book on his experience denouncing such things as dance halls as proof the US was evil and should be destroyed and resisted at all turns. His writings have influenced the whole current crop of Islamic fundamentalism, by identifying the past glories of the Islamic world, the current depression, and the failure of western ideals like socialism or capitialism to work, thus the obvious solution is 8th century Islam. You should try and pick up the book "Crisis in Islam" or something similar. I got it from Waterstones about a year ago. Very good read if you want to see what these guys think.

How do you know? I thought they didn't release the names of the victims yet.

The sunday papers carried a page of the photographs, names and nationalities of the missing - who if they havent turned up by now, are dead.

Then how could that yank fella John Walker Lindh join their ranks, if they hate us all equally?

He converted totally to their way of life? He denounced every aspect of western culture and embraced their whacko creed? Is that what you want to do? - if so, yeah, you might be safe.

I dunno is Al'Q trying to instigate civil war in Iraq. More likely i suspect: Sunni insurgents, you know former Bath party loyalists, Saddam supporters, former Republican Guards.

Then find out. Ive not got time to educate you on everything.

The bombs didn't go off near any borders, nor in multiple nations at once. There is no shadow of a question as to which country was attacked.

A country wasnt attacked - random commuters were. They didnt attack any political, military, or financial target of note - a fricking bus ffs! Who are these guys supposed to be? The armed wing of the Stop the War Coalition?

Or do you also think, Sand, that the destruction of the WTC was not aimed at America, given the international nature of the people killed?

That was aimed at the West - strike at the strongest power in the western world, that best represents everything they hate and fear in their strongest cities. Where else would you go for the most spectacular impact? Sligo? If theres some country by country targeting how come the US didnt get any thanks for rescuing the muslims in the Balkans, or supporting their jihad in Afghanistan? How come Al Queda didnt attack Milosevic?

It makes no sense whatsoever to claim these are some sort of politically motivated attacks - theyre idealogical. It wouldnt matter if the US offered itself as the Muslim Rapid Reaction Force - for as long as it spread corrupting ideas like women being allowed to drive it would be the enemy for them.

You think? Given the amount of high-explosive used, and the times/routes chosen, I'd say that they must be pretty stupid people then, because they could easily have managed a higher head-count.

Thats logical - The attacks *could* have yielded a higher toll, hence the bombers must have attempted to limit the carnage. Who knows, perhaps a shred of evidence to support that view will turn up.

And a string of attacks against other US assets, but clearly because of the international nature of the people who would end up dead it wasn't America which was being targetted. Right?

The tourists who were killed in eygpt would agree that theres more to being targeted by the these guys than being in the US. Do some googling, I knew about the big massacre back in the mid 90s but its actually alarmingly common for western tourists to be killed or shot at in Egypt.

I guess they must be a country too.

If they hate us, maybe we should be asking what we have done to deserve such hatred, and why the nature of this hatred has changed so drastically within our lifetimes.

Bonkey - thats easily answered - Whats changed is that the House of Saud got very rich, very fast, and started bankrolling Wahhibism, which was previously an extremist, intolerant desert variant of Islam straight from the country that banned anyone not Muslim from Saudia Arabia until modern times, which as Bin Laden will tell you is still a controversial decision. Backed by Saudi dollars it went on to pretty much dominate the Sunni world. Why do you think Al Queda is killing Shias in Iraq? This new extremist form of Islam where anyone can call anyone an apostate, and thus immediately kill them, has provided fertile ground for extremists. It certainly doesnt help that the Saudis send immans to the mosques across Western Europe, which can be fine, or it can drop idealogical radicalism right in on top of youth discontent in the local variant of Ballymun, which is not a good combination.

Frank Grimes

Sand wrote:

Too bad, thats the reality.

In your opinion.

They were either bombing and killing us before -or trying to-the Iraq War, even before 9/11. Attacks on tourists in Eygpt, attacks that killed hundreds in Nairobi, foiled attempts to bomb the WTC back in the 90s, attacks on the French metro back in the 90s.

Do you think those events have anything else in common with the Bin Laden "way of thinking" or else any other motivation on the part of the perpetrators, besides a rabid hatred of the West/Western culture?

Now, unless they were attempting to get their retaliation in first, the Iraq war is not the cause of their hate....

I never said this all started with Iraq so I'm not sure why you're saying that. Fair enough the claim of responsibility for the London bombs blamed Britain's involvement in Iraq but I wasn't referring to them specifically, I was referring to Bin Laden type "ideology" in general.

And lets face it, if hes got such a big problem with the governments in the middle east, why didnt *he* liberate Iraq?

Because they seem to consider America and their allies as the root cause of all these problems. These groups have said repeatedly that's one of the reasons why they're attacking these places.

Bin Laden takes inspiration from an Egyptian education official, by the name of Qtub, from the 1950s who travelled to the US on an exchange programme and wrote a book on his experience denouncing such things as dance halls as proof the US was evil and should be destroyed and resisted at all turns.

Qutb's ideas are a little more complex than not liking dance halls (one link), also being almost tortured to death in Nasser's prisons hardened his views for obvious reasons.

You should try and pick up the book "Crisis in Islam" or something similar.

Is that the book by Bernard Lewis? I've read Jason Burke's book on Al Qaeda which covers Qutb amongst others. It's an excellent read, something else to check out if anyone's interested.

Hobbes

Sand wrote:

Then find out. Ive not got time to educate you on everything.

I would say from what I have read it pretty much correct.

It makes no sense whatsoever to claim these are some sort of politically motivated attacks - theyre idealogical. It wouldnt matter if the US offered itself as the Muslim Rapid Reaction Force - for as long as it spread corrupting ideas like women being allowed to drive it would be the enemy for them.

You go on about how OBL/AQ hate the west and have always have done. So answer me this? Why did OBL work for the USA/CIA? Why did OBL personally thank the US at one time and why do you think they suddenly flip-flopped?

capistrano

Hobbes wrote:

So answer me this? Why did OBL work for the USA/CIA? Why did OBL personally thank the US at one time and why do you think they suddenly flip-flopped?

Easy! It's the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" principle. It held true in Afghanistan in the 80s but not now.

AmenToThat

growler wrote:

which would be a good point if the suicide bombers were from Afghanistan or Iraq or even anywhere in the Middle East , but they weren't, they were British , last time I looked the Bristish weren't bombing Yorkshire's Muslims or invading Pakistan ( they were apparently of Pakistani decent). Why would British foreign policy motivate it's own citizens to kill their fellow citizens ?

Much of the funding and arming of the IRA came from Irish Americans, last time I looked the British werent invading South Boston or or the North Bronx in NYC!

Many Muslims, rightly or wrongly, believe that the actions of the British and American governments is aimed at keeping all muslims down by the use of the tried and trusted technique of divide and conquer sp that they can control the oil supply. The extremists tend to take the view that an attack on one is an attack on all and as such events in Afghanistan and Iraq are very relevent to the motivation of these young men in my opinion.

Hobbes

capistrano wrote:

Easy! It's the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" principle. It held true in Afghanistan in the 80s but not now.

Except that they weren't enemies with the US during that time. So that is not the case. The actual question is why they became enemies.

capistrano

Hobbes wrote:

Except that they weren't enemies with the US during that time. So that is not the case. The actual question is why they became enemies.

My point was that they were enemies of the USSR, who were the enemy of the USA. I wouldn't say they were ever friends of the US but, of course, they took arms whereever they could get them. Also, you said that OBL worked for the CIA - have you any evidence for this? Accpeting indirect support is not the same as working for the CIA.

rsynnott

capistrano wrote:

My point was that they were enemies of the USSR, who were the enemy of the USA. I wouldn't say they were ever friends of the US but, of course, they took arms whereever they could get them.

They had the same basic short-term goals as the US (keep Soviets out of the middle east, they were given weapons by the US, and they were far more ideologically compatible with the US than with the Soviets. Sounds moderately friendly, as far as "friendships" between nations go.

This is one of the disadvantages of the end of the cold war; the middle east no longer has its huge immediate neighbor looking constantly to expand, so they have the free time to go after their less immediate oppressors. (As they see the US; they are right, to a certain extent).

Sand

I never said this all started with Iraq so I'm not sure why you're saying that. Fair enough the claim of responsibility for the London bombs blamed Britain's involvement in Iraq but I wasn't referring to them specifically, I was referring to Bin Laden type "ideology" in general.

Well, firstly Bin Ladens idealogy has very little to do with Iraq in itself.

Secondly, the bombers appear to have been British born, descended from Pakistani/Indian immigrants and thus its hard to see the emotional attachment to Iraq.

And from the scant details that have come out so far, it appears that the common link is their radicalisation at an Islamic youth center by a known fundamentalist a couple of years back.

Because they seem to consider America and their allies as the root cause of all these problems. These groups have said repeatedly that's one of the reasons why they're attacking these places.

Why do they consider them the root cause of their problems? Their political interventions in Afghanistan and the Balkans in assistance of the muslims there dont seem to win them any thanks.

From their idealogical viewpoint the Middle East is failed because it has been corrupted by western views such a human rights, secularism, socialism, capitalism. These are the real threats to Bin Ladens end goal - an idealogical revolution, not a political one.

Lets face it, the main support for Bin Ladens views come from the oppression of liberties in Middle Eastern countries, where the Mosque is the only counter-establishment institution the dictators cant touch for fear of the backlash. In here the ills of the people are painted in religious and spiritual terms. Its a common theme in all religions, where people are being punished by evil rulers for turning away from Gods way, and importing the corrupt ideas of the Great Satan.

Qutb's ideas are a little more complex than not liking dance halls (one link), also being almost tortured to death in Nasser's prisons hardened his views for obvious reasons.

Indeed but it was his views that landed him in prison, not the other way round. He formed them whilst a government official studying in the US.

You go on about how OBL/AQ hate the west and have always have done. So answer me this? Why did OBL work for the USA/CIA? Why did OBL personally thank the US at one time and why do you think they suddenly flip-flopped?

Who says he worked *for* them? He may have taken their assistance but that doesnt mean he was endorsing them or their views. Its clear now that he was only taking advantage of them in the short term.

Come on Hobbes, havent we heard the usual rent-a-mob lefties argue again and again that just becuase they let violent, corrupt, terrorist movements share their platforms on protests doesnt mean they endorse them?