I see what you're saying but let's not forget some things about Bin Laden's ideology: this was a man who believed the Taliban under the rule of Mullah Omar was "the only Islamic country in the world". This was the same Taliban who thought women literally have to cover every inch of their bodies, and have no right to an education or employment, and this Taliban beat women with sticks or executed them in soccer fields if they dared to try to get educated, or even wear make-up. He was against democracy. He was against socialism. He thought Shia Muslims are heretics. The man was such a fanatic he even thought music should be illegal.
You say his main goal was independence from the West. But that was just a means to Bin Laden's goal. After the West is out of the way, he could accomplish his real goal of imposing his extremely oppressive version of Islam on women, and other Muslims.
Here is one example which proves this. Did Bin Laden want independence for the people in the tiny country of East Timor, who were brutalized and massacred by military occupation from the larger, more powerful country of Indonesia? No. Why? I thought Bin Laden was a freedom fighter? The reason is because the people of East Timor are mostly Catholic, and the people of Indonesia are mostly Muslim. So even though Indonesia had a very brutal military occupation of East Timor, Bin Laden didn't oppose the occupation. Even though the people of East Timor wanted their freedom, Bin Laden didn't support their independence. Even though Indonesia was large and powerful, Bin Laden didn't support the weak. Even though Indonesia carried out mass killings and terrible crimes, Bin Laden didn't oppose it. Bin Laden called the head of the UN a "criminal" for advocating independence and peace for the people of tiny East Timor. In Bin Laden's twisted ideology, ending military occupation, restoring peace, and achieving independence for a tiny country from a powerful country is a "crime" when the powerful country is Muslim.
Bin Laden's ideology was not about independence from the West it was about conquering the world with a Taliban - style government. Independence from the West was a means to that goal, but he didn't favor "independence" for all people, everywhere, as a principle. This was a man who advocated attacking embassies. Passenger planes. Buses, trains. Journalists. Shia Muslims at a festival. Christians inside a church in Baghdad. People standing in line to vote in the new Iraqi government (democracy is not part of Islam, after all and a democratic Iraq would be Shia, not Sunni). When Iraqi Sunnis split with Al Qaeda in Iraq, Al Qaeda started killing Sunni civilians.
This is not a man who believed in peace. Or democracy. Or human rights, or independence. He did oppose the West. But if you think he opposed the West based on any of these principles, I think the facts show differently.
Mr Spinkles, you are confusing all the issues together. This is unfair.
First, Osama's Bin Ladin case was about the independence of the Ummah which he belonged to. As for the specific case you talked about, I need to look into it.
Secondly, Bin Laden wasn't about ideologies only but he put his ideologies into action. There was a certain cause for which he dedicated his life, as I mentioned in the other thread, he gave up the life of multimillionaires for the sake of what he believed in.
We can review his early life to understand the dedication of his life. He went to participate in jihad against the Soviet Union when he was 22 years old or so. Then after the the gulf war, he found the American military bases in KSA; he openly criticized the royal family for this and their alliance with the USA until the KSA dismissed him and you know the rest. The meaning is what shaped his views is the issue of foreign domination over the Muslim nations and based on this the importance of jihad against it. Bin Ladin was mainly interested in fighting against the foreign forces in contrast to other figures who were more interested in fighting against the local "apostate" governments that rule Muslims.
I don't understand what it means to say that independence was a means, not a goal. Jihad against the occupying and oppressive forces is an extremely important concept in Islam. It's an obligation. I don't know how if we defended our countries against injustice and oppression, it could possibly mean anything except that we fought against injustice and oppression.
I see what you're saying but let's not forget some things about Bin Laden's ideology: this was a man who believed the Taliban under the rule of Mullah Omar was "the only Islamic country in the world". This was the same Taliban who thought women literally have to cover every inch of their bodies, and have no right to an education or employment, and this Taliban beat women with sticks or executed them in soccer fields if they dared to try to get educated, or even wear make-up. He was against democracy. He was against socialism. He thought Shia Muslims are heretics. The man was such a fanatic he even thought music should be illegal.
Democracy is unIslamic? So what? Many Muslims view it as such.
Music is haram? So what? Many Muslims view it as such.
Covering women from head to toe? So what?
Shi'a are heretics? So what?
All these issues are topics of debate between Muslims, not new. These debates are tolerated. In addition, there is a difference between strict opinions and the actual blood shedding of innocents. You face the opinion with another one but when it comes to killing of innocents, it becomes a completely different issue.
Also, these issues can be overlooked very well when we talk about a man who calls for resisting occupation and recognizing the US and Israel as enemies, or who calls for unity of the Ummah. These details about music, socialism(?), niqab, "the only source of authority is God" can be tolerated in the middle of the bigger issues that face Muslims and which threaten their identity and existence.
Plus, when did he say music should be illegal, women should be beaten, Shi'a are heretics...etc, do you have a source?
Muslims who disagree on these issues: democracy, music, niqab ,etc, become (or should become) united when they face real threats and when they have greater goal. This is actually what we witnessed in the Egyptian revolution: Salafis, Ikhwanis, Moderates, liberals, unlabeled people gathered in one place and defended each other. Under normal circumstances, if we put these people in one place, they will fight.
Al-Qaeda became a universal movement. The different groups in the different places inspired their ideologies from Bin Laden but they were not under the direct command of Bin Ladin.
I have seen some Muslims who argue asking for the proofs that link him with the operations that targeted civilians mainly.
But we are more sure that he didn't reject the killing of civilians, he didn't refute the claims...he could ask those who saw him as inspiration to stop targeting civilians...
The whole issue is confusing and there is much confusion and debate among the Muslim rank.
Many Muslims don't trust the American account of the story including myself. Many sympathize with his cause. But we can conclude that he advocated or involved in the killing of civilians. Apparently, many Muslims disagree with this conclusion.
