Bin Laden welcomes war
It will give him an elevated status among the extremists
By Manou Marzban
September 11, 2003
Sent to iranian.com on September 18,
2001, days after the 9/11 tragedy. It is being published for
the first time.
First and foremost, let me say that the WTC/Pentagon tragedy is
unacceptable and an act so inhuman that it curdles my blood and
depresses me greatly. Let me add that any violent act that is carried
out in the name of God, religion or belief is against the true
principles of any faith. Also let me add that any loss of life
due to poltical gain is also unacceptable. Now let's wake up: it
happens every bleeding day.
I am actually writing in response
to Guive's Mirfendereki's superb editorial [Defining
which was very much on
target, especially this very insightful paragraph:
is that as long as the United States is present in the Persian
Gulf countries and underwrites the survival
decrepit Arab monarchies, from Kuwait to Oman, these countries
would not have an opportunity to develop into progressive
republics. One would assume that Bin Laden would have wanted
to have an
opportunity to takeover Saudi Arabia and it is safe to
assume that he would
not be given to secular political forms or machinations.
But the other new republics would have a choice from the
of Pakistan (mild), Iran (sweet and sour), and Afghanistan
(double pepper) forms of Islamic government.
I also believe that as long as there
is global poverty and a lack of the basic infrastracture for a
society to evolve
especially in respect to eductation and health, we will have
very poor pockets that are suspect to any rhetoric, let alone
call-to-action. Hence we keep hearing 'jihad'. The ultimate
Bin Laden has wanted the US out of the region
reasons, least of all to see secular republics replace
corrupt Gulf monarchies. However, if he creates a situation that
baits the US into military action, the result of the devastation
and destruction is a stronger Bin Laden. Dead or alive.
poverty, restlessness, and international scrutiny, the
more recruits for
any extremist cause in the region.
I strongly believe
that Bin Laden's focus is to create instability, and he even
welcomes war. It will give him an elevated status among the
extremists, and convert
those that previously were undecided on his agenda.
well get his chance of forcing his 'menu' of Islamic
republics in the region. I believe that his long-term objective
just that, create as many Islamic republics under his
sphere of influence as possible. If he does, we have taken a
giant step backwards
in the Middle East. And the US is playing straight
into his hands. Cunning over muscle works every time.
Ultimately, the US has carried military campaigns globally
for years, killing people in their own home towns.
Now that this
equation has been reversed, its hard to digest the
fact in the West. Who
exactly will the US hit in the Middel East anyway?
There is nothing left to hit in Afghanistan. Nothing is intact,
destroyed through years of civil unrest. Ground troops?
And then what? Look under every stone in terrain
more unfriendly than
Mars? What about the dangers of chemical or biological
the West from a desperate Bin Laden? Are we ready
A faceless enemy that is nowhere and everwhere. An
enemy very much
in its own region as well as entrenched in its
opponents society (even protected in some places, like in the
under the banner
of 'civil liberties' - how ironic). The West
simply cannot win a war against global Islam'ism'.
Finally, back to my thesis; that poverty breeds extremism,
and religion (or ideology) simply helps organise
the masses for mobilisation.
After WWI, the economic depression (read: poverty)
in Germany helped the Nazi's gain momentum. Communism
not in advanced
societies as Marx predicted, but agriculturally
based economies suffering depression and restlessness (Russia,
Throughout the 20th Century, it was in poor countries
that saw the US
and the USSR lock horns (result: years of instability
and puppet governments plus lots of dead people).
is that in the
cases of Germany, Russia or China, it was nationalism
or communism (poltical ideologies) that motivated
it was economic depression and gross poverty.
Yes, there were many
other reasons for the rise of national-socialism
and communism, but poverty and desperation were the nucleus.
To a poor,
uneducated, and desperate individual existing
anyone that fights in the name of the poor
and underprivileged, and has
taken on the mighty US, Israel and others,
is a hero. Bin Laden has taken it one step further and introduced
in the name
of God. Jihad. The ultimate declaration. The
Until we address global poverty and the gap between
the have's and have not's we will reel in discontent
don't have the answers, nor do I judge how
people feel or should
feel on both sides of the fence. I have read
all sorts of rationalisations and blame for
Hussien's revenge, the Opium Trade, Bin Laden's
the US, even Pakistan vs India. In reality,
it may have been all
of the above or just a band of pissed off maniacs
(Oklahoma ring a
I can understand the call for revenge
in the US - especially after CNN's over-the-top
misery to our
living rooms so vividly - but I can also
see how this can
get out of
hand. This is truly a time to use brain over
muscle - or face possibly
worse consequences than the WTC tragedy.
The climate is panicky and this is not the time
to lay blame
is 'in the pudding', as we say in England.
It was upsetting to hear
an interview) a certain Royal personage
blame the current Iranian government of harbouring
the response would
be a devastating bombardment of Iranian
facilities by the West, killing scores of Iranians?
Ahhh, more fodder
If you want the real reason for
a polarisation of the West with Islam'ism'
or other ideologies...look at the poverty
that engulfs the third world, and the inability
economic and financial institutions to
solve it. What saddens me is that
many more innocent people will die and
suffer before we can even see a glimmer of hope.
this page to your friends