Osama bin Laden Quotes

February, 1998, in issuing a 'fatwa':

”... the killing of Americans and their civilian and military allies is a religious duty for each and every Muslim to be carried out in whichever country they are until Al Aqsa mosque has been liberated from their grasp and until their armies have left Muslim lands.” Osama bin Laden


“We with God’s help call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill Americans and plunder their money whenever and wherever they find it." Osama bin Laden, from the same 'fatwa'


Some other quotes of Osama bin Laden:


“acquiring such weapons for the defense of Muslims (was) a religious duty.” (when asked about nuclear or chemical weapons)


“Our enemy is every American male, whether he is directly fighting us or paying taxes.”


"Hostility toward America is a religious duty and we hope to be rewarded for it by God. I am confident that Muslims will be able to end the legend of the so-called superpower that is America.”


All quotes on this page are of bin Laden.


Source: from the British document of summary of evidence against Osama bin Laden, Oct. 4, 2001

"Our enemy is every American male, whether he is directly fighting us or ((((paying taxes))))."


That lets me off the hook.

I saw these too and I'm glad you posted them here. This is why I am tired of the argument that America created Bin Laden by giving support to the people fighting the Soviets. (We helped people who are now fighting the Taliban too.) We didn't create Bin Laden, he got the way he is all by himself. And there can be no doubt that we must crush him and all those who side with him. I just hope we can succeed.

I haven't seen an argument that America created Bin Laden. I have seen arguments that America gave support to people that were fighting the Soviets and that those people were being helped by Bin Laden. I have said that we ought to be careful in deciding who we help and who we don't help. Some 300 to 500 of the Stinger missiles we gave (secretly) to the mujahadeen in the 1980s are unaccounted for. One fears they will soon be accounted for.


Far too often America went into other countries like a bull in a china shop and kept this secret from the American people. Some of the people we aided turned out, like Bin Laden, to be bad people. (In Bin Laden's case, I would say bad is a charitable description.) In Afghanistan, after the Soviets left, we turned our back on the country. Then we're surprised when things don't turn out so well.


While we didn't create Bin Laden, the man did not create himself in a vacuum. Specific policies have specific consequences. I agree 100% that he needs to be crushed and I too hope we can succeed. But it will be difficult now, in part because we weren't thinking clearly, or rather, weren't given any information when we first secretly did stupid things.

I've seen the argument on this forum that we created Bin Laden (but not from you) :-)


I don't think it was a mistake to help Afghanistan fight off the Soviets, even if some of the people fighting were bad people. The Soviet Union was an overriding problem, and allowing them to physically control Afghanistan would have been a strategic disaster. Reagan's weapons were a lot better than Carter's Olympic boycott. Bin Laden fought the Soviets, and my understanding is he didn't have the fully-formed hatred of the U.S. that he has now, although I could be wrong. So, sure there were consequences to our helping in Afghanistan, but I don't think we have much to apologize for. (Now don't go picturing George C. Scott in Strangelove saying "I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed.")


I don't know much about our policies after the Soviets were driven out. I suspect more fault can be found there as opposed to what we did during the war.

"I don't think it was a mistake to help Afghanistan fight off the Soviets, even if some of the people fighting were bad people."


-This is precisely the problem. Our government took the same attitude (not just in Afghanistan). It turns out that the people who came into power after our intervention (not just in Afghanistan) were far worse than the Soviet puppets. If we're going to decide to help overthrow a government (a whole other matter, but let's leave it be for the sake of argument), we should be cognizant of the nature of the resistance movement (so we don't end up with the Contras or the majahadeen or Pinoichet or Diem and Thieu on our side) and we should not just turn our back and let the next set of tyrants do as they please.


"Bin Laden fought the Soviets, and my understanding is he didn't have the fully-formed hatred of the U.S. that he has now"


-I believe this is correct. Supposedly his wrath stems from the U.S.'s involvement in the Gulf War and our continuing presence in Saudi Arabia.


"sure there were consequences to our helping in Afghanistan, but I don't think we have much to apologize for."


-Here I disagree. The Taliban is in power in large part because of the vacuum we helped create. We did nothing about them because we didn't care about the consequences of our intervention, only about the Soviets. Part and parcel of our continuing preoccupation with the Soviets to the exclusion of intelligent thinking about other problem in the world. Hell, the first country to complain about the barbaric treatment of women in Afghanistan was Iran. Iran! Where were we? It wasn't until Mavis Leno (Jay Leno's wife) made a stink at a U.N. conference that we started to think, hey, maybe these guys ain't so nice, even though they are anti-communist. I would hope our leaders are more cognizant of world affairs than Mavis Leno.


Hopefully we'll learn from our mistakes.


I can't recommend enough the book Taliban by Ahmed Rashid. Shows what truly frightening and sickening people these guys are.

The people who came to power may well have been far worse than the Soviet puppets. That does not mean, however, that they were necessarily far worse than the Soviets themselves, especially in terms of the larger strategic picture.


Yes we perhaps should have been more cognizant and perhaps more activist with regards to the resulting power vacuum. However, if it were a choice between things happening as they did and the Soviets taking over Afghanistan, the lesser of two evils probably came to pass. The Soviets clearly were aiming for a warm water port in the strategically vital oil-rich lands, and Afghanistan was the one step they needed to base their push into the oil-rich countries. If they had next taken over, say, Iran, the ensuing world history and even the outcome of the Cold War might have been quite different.

...to conquer if they had succeeded in Afghanistan. Their army at the time was ideal for rolling through such a country, their strength in tanks was the greatest in the world, and their tactical skills in such an arena were probably better in this respect than even the USA (as war games at the time showed, I believe. This is also one reason NATO had to rely on nuclear deterrence as part of the defensive strategy in Europe). The Soviets could have "owned" the vital strait of Hormuz in fairly short order if they had Afghanistan as a stable base from which to attack.

M said most of what I would say in response. In terms of the global threat, the Soviet threat compared to the Taliban is like the difference between a BB gun and a B-52.


Also, the Soviets were the ones who dropped the "toy bombs" in Afghanistan- the cluster bombs that were made to look like toys and were fused to blow when kids would pick them up. The Soviets had an absolutely indefensible human rights record. They are every bit the equal of anyone else you want to put up against them for most horrible regime.

"Specific policies have specific consequences."


I believe it is our general policies of freedom, capitalism, and pluralism which are far more responsible for inspiring the hatred of fundamentalist Moslems than our specific foreign policies. They view the penetration of western culture and technology into their lands as a threat to their faith and way of life...AND THEY ARE RIGHT! Exposure to western values and freedom would surely threaten their people's acceptance of the backward and repressive Islamic fundamentalist beliefs and practices. The fundamentalists are fighting for the survival of their faith. Their holy war is to determine whether the dominant force in the world will be freedom/capitalism or Islamic fundamentalism. Osama and his followers will not stop until they or we are defeated.

Canada is free, capitalist (mostly), and pluralist. Why is Canada not the primary target of Bin Laden? On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is not free, capitalist (mostly) and pluralist. Why is Saudi Arabia then a target of Bin Laden?


The answer is that, in addition to our commitment to freedom, capitalism and pluralism, we have done speicifc things to which Bin Laden objects. And Saudi Arabia has done specific things to which Bin Laden objects. We can argue whether or not a specific policy was good for the United States, or for another country. But I don't think it's arguable that our policies have consequences. And one of these consequences is that Bin Laden hates us, not just for iedological reasons.


I agree with everything you have posted, with the exception of your first sentence.

I am not a geopolitical expert, but I think the domino theory was long ago discredited. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan not to take over but to retain control. To say that this made the takeover of Iran inevitable of even likely strikes me as a stretch.


But even if, for the sake of argument, I concede the point (and I'm not trying to be condescending here, please don't take it that way), the complete disengagement from Afghanistan by the U.S. after the Soviets gave up was indeed an action that had consequences. We cared not what happened to Afghanistan so long as the Soviets were defeated. And this has been a problem with our foreign policy for a long time.

I think you guys are missing my point. I am not defending the Soviets. It isn't hard to make a case for them being bigger and more dangerous bastards than the bastards that are now running Afghanistan. The phrase Soviet human rights is a non-sequiter.


My point is that we went in to keep the Soviets from being successful. Then we abandoned the place to the next set of bastards. We have done this a lot. (Most of the time the idea that the Soviets were behind the trouble was a fantasy, but in this case it was of course true.) Then we are shocked, disappointed, and surprised when things turn bad for both us and the country involved.


Many times we didn't just abandon the place, but we helped the ensuing bastards. Bin Laden hates us, no doubt, because we are anatnema to his version of Islam. But he also hates us beause of our polices in support of Israel and Saudi Arabia. I am not saying he is right for doing so; of course he is wrong. (He's worse than wrong, he's an international menace.)


I am just saying that there are consequences to our actions and we need to think them through at the beginning, not after things have turned sour at the end.

. . .about the Northern Alliance. He's said what I've been thinking, a lot better than I have said it.

At least it won't be a problem with our foreign policy anymore;- (vis-a-vis the Soviet Union anyway). Regarding Afghanistan I think the US should, and probably will, pay more attention to developing a better government to replace the Taliban.


I don't know if the domino theory was discredited or not (and by whom?), but I would personally lay 100-1 that if the Soviets ever had taken over Afghanistan and truly managed to consolidate their gains, that a warm-water port in the Gulf would have been their next conquest. The USSR had long desired a warm-water port...and that's not even considering the strategic importance and economic benefits of oil.

I agree that we can't just abandon a place totally once we have been involved. We would better serve our interests by staying engaged.

"By walking away from Afghanistan as early as it did, the USA faced within a few years dead diplomats, destroyed embassies, bombs in New York and cheap heroin on its streets, as Afghanistan became a sanctuary for international terrorism and the drugs mafia. Afghans today remain deeply bitter about their abandonment by the USA, for whom they fought the Cold War. In the 1980s the USA was prepared 'to fight till the last Afghan' to get even with the Soviet Union, but when the Soviets left, Washington was not prepared to help bring peace or feed a hungry people. Regional powers took advantage of the political vacuum the US retreat created, saw an opportunity to wield influence and jumped into the fray."


Ahmed Rashid, Taliban

They hate us more than Canada because we are the richest, most influential, and most powerful nation in the world. We are the symbol of everything they hate. I also believe they are jealous. Many of them are taught that they have so little because America has so much.


Saudi Arabia is a target because of their cooperation with the great satan, and because the fundamentalists' dreams of world domination begin with the middle east. I believe a primary goal of murdering American civilians is to increase the fundamentalists' prestige and popularity in Arab countries, thereby facilitating their planned take-over of political power in those countries.


[I do concede that our placement of troups in Saudi Arabia was the catalyst for bin Laden's holy war against us.]


-Mike

[I do concede that our placement of troups in Saudi Arabia was the catalyst for bin Laden's holy war against us.]


To clarify, bin Laden supported the war against Iraq, but felt it should be fought by Arabs. He was enraged by America's participation due to our values of freedom, pluralism, etc. He felt the holy land of Saudi Arabia was/is defiled by our presence.

"He was enraged by America's participation due to our values of freedom, pluralism, etc. He felt the holy land of Saudi Arabia was/is defiled by our presence."


An obvious crackpot.

Afghanistan is in the Soviets' backyard. It's as if the russians decide suddenly to get real cosy with Cuba - cosy to the point of installing missiles there.


Remember the Cuban crisis: It was defused with a quid pro quo. The Soviets withdrew their missiles from America's underbelly and the United States withrew their missiles from U.S.S.R.'s underbelly (Eastern Turkey).


The Americans tried to play fast and loose with the Afghan situation and the Soviets, of course, would have none of it. This should be easily understood and, if the U.S. was to behave sensibly, they would leave the pro-Soviet regime well enough alone. They didn't and the rest is (should be) well known to all. Guerrilas -- More harsh regime in Kabul -- More radical (religious) guerrilas -- mingling of neighboring countries (Pakistan) -- ....etc etc... -- bin Laden.


As to Iran ever being in danger of a "Soviet takeover", it's all barlderdash, straight from the desk of looney tune spookmeisters. The United States became a foe of Iran when they overthrew the democratically-elected nationalist leader Mossadegh to install the Pahlevi dynasty. Which soon went out of control and became a local superpower armed to the teeth. The Soviets never had a foot in thr whole situation. They never even had contacts with the anti-Shah forces. You know why?


Because the Americans saw to it that the Shah massacred ALL the leftist opposition in Iran, from the whole Communist Party to the intellectual moderate left. After the bloodbath, oposition to the regime was channelled necessarily through the religious fundamendalist groups. (Read this paragraph again! It should serve as a highly revelatory light to the way things have turned out.)


It's a story which has been repeated throughout the Third World, with the usual messy results.

The domino theory was discredited by facts. Country B in geopraphic proximity to Country A does not "fall" to the enemy because Country A does. The theory developed during the Cold War because we operated under the false assumption that the Communist world was monolithic, that all nationalist movements in which Communists participated were directed by and beholden to the Soviet Union. We were told, for example, that the Arbenz government in Guatemala was a Soviet beachhead that would lead to the Bolshevization of all of Central America and then Mexico. We were told that the success of the Viet Cong would lead ipso factoto the Communization of all of Asia including Indonesia and Japan. Such faulty logic led to faulty choices in foreign policy.


This does not mean that such domino type event never happen. YI suspect you are correct about Iran here, I'm not knowledgable in this area. But it does mean that to assume the theory is always operative, as we did in the 1950s and 1960s, is to look at the world partially blinded.

"Here I disagree. The Taliban is in power in large part because of the vacuum we helped create. We did nothing about them because we didn't care about the consequences of our intervention, only about the Soviets."


Do you think the Soviets would have "won" their war in Afghanistan if we hadn't aided the Afghans?


I don't think so. Once the Soviets left, the Afghans would have fought just as they have whether we had been there or not. The Taliban would have emerged because they were tired of the fighting and looking for order. The Pakistans would have supported them for the reasons that they wanted to support them. Bin Laden would have been just as radicalized by our liberation of Kuwait.


So, the Taliban is not in power because we helped the Afghans throw off a foreign invader. Bin Laden is not the man he is because of that help to the Afghans either. Do you think we really should have stuck around and imposed "nation building" on the Afghans? It seems to be what you are arguing. Hmmm, that sounds like something you don't normally support, at least you didn't in Chile (which I agree), or Nicaragua.

Are you actually claiming that the US started the guerrila war in Afghanistan? Are you claiming that the Soviets would have succeeded in Afghanistan whether we would have been there or not?


You do have an interesting point on the relationship between a right wing regime's oppression of the intellectual left and the resulting more extreme nature of the reaction. Couldn't the same dynamic have happened in Afghanistan? (Surely, the communists were great at eliminating, i.e. killing, the independent intellectuals). Maybe we should be blaming Russia for the resultant mess in Afghanistan. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, that wouldn't quite fit in with the anti-US position favored here.

This is such a joke.


"In the 1980s the USA was prepared 'to fight till the last Afghan' to get even with the Soviet Union"


In the 1980s the Afghans were just as eager to fight till the last Afghan to get rid of the Soviets. Hell, from their current quotes, whipping foreign invaders appears to be their favorite sport. They certainly didn't need our encouraging to turn on the Soviets. To say they were used is just a bunch of BS. If we hadn't have helped them, then they would have rightfully been bitter.


"Afghans today remain deeply bitter about their abandonment by the USA, for whom they fought the Cold War. In the 1980s the USA was prepared 'to fight till the last Afghan' to get even with the Soviet Union, but when the Soviets left, Washington was not prepared to help bring peace or feed a hungry people."


And, more BS. What were we supposed to do??!!!??!! Occupy the country with our own military forces and bang some heads together so they would get some sense. We tried that in Somalia and look what that got us. It took the world community years to get the courage to take action in Bosnia (and note the left still wasn't happy about that little war). News to the world ... The U.S. is not responsible for peace within your borders. If you are anxious to kill your brothers, don't expect us to step in and stop it. The Afghans are bitter becuase they weren't able to get their shit together following the war and put together a decent government. However, like those who play the blame game all over the world and at all levels, it is so much easier to blame somebody else.


I don't care if they are bitter. Nobody in America put a gun to their head after the Soviets left and told them to continue the civil war among themselves until a rabid Taliban actually looked good to the people for a bit. And, I wouldn't be willing to spill a drop a single drop of American blood to help them figure out their shit.


That is, until they decided to attack the US. Then, their problems are my problems. However, the truth of the matter is the following: there are many, many screwed up places around the world. America isn't able to fix them all, nor should we. It is easy to say: 'Wow, that place is messed up, no wonder they attacked us'. In reality, a very small percentage of messed up places ever attack the US. It is far cheaper in blood and money to only fix those places that do attack us.

-- "Are you actually claiming that the US started the guerrila war in Afghanistan? Are you claiming that the Soviets would have succeeded in Afghanistan whether we would have been there or not?"


-- I'm claiming that the Americans helped destabilize the pro-Soviet (more like a "Finland") regime in Kabul and thus indirectly prompted a coup and then Soviet intervention. Tactically, this was a win-win situation for the U.S. : the Soviets would either invade and lose tremendously in world opinion, or they would have to accept a hostile regime in their backyard. That was good by-the-book tactics but the sides that the U.S. supported to carry out these tactics have proven to be quite poisonous scorpions.


You don't just create (or nourish) little monsters to fight a bigger monster, trusting that they will just go away when the big monster dies! What will most likely happen is that the little monsters will grow into big ones. Reminds you of anything?..


-- "You do have an interesting point on the relationship between a right wing regime's oppression of the intellectual left and the resulting more extreme nature of the reaction. Couldn't the same dynamic have happened in Afghanistan? (Surely, the communists were great at eliminating, i.e. killing, the independent intellectuals). Maybe we should be blaming Russia for the resultant mess in Afghanistan. In fact, I'm sure of it. However, that wouldn't quite fit in with the anti-US position favored here."


-- No knee-jerk anti-U.S. position here.


But to better understand what i'm talking about look what happened in a country like Italy. Smack in the midle of Europe, Yalta-wise belonging to the West, with a Communist Party easily having 40% of the vote, and ARMED after the end of World War II. Admittedly, the Italian CP leadership showed tremendous foresight and wisdom and did not pursue a power-grabbing policy, neither with arms or with the ballot. (Unlike, say, the CP leadership of a country like Greece : civil war, etc.) But note that the West did not directly intervene either, and instead tried to better the society as a whole (Marshall Plan, etc.) while only covertly helping the Communists' opponents in the electoral process. (OK, the dirty war was a LOT dirty in Italy too, but that's beside the point.)


We can only speculate abt Afghanistan but what we have to go on are these : The intelligentsia (including almost all the teachers in schools and universities) were anti-royalists or leftists. The country was extremely poor. In these situations, people automatically turn to the Left. The West should have made anything possible to improve human and economic conditions there as much as possible, something that always shifts people away from utopian political thought and into pragmatic and liberal formations.


Instead we armed, supported and financed the islamic mujaheedin. These guerillas slaughtered all the teachers, with special zeal reserved for the women ones. They also executed all the non-fundamendalists in the Afghani elite, thus eliminating any hope for a truly democratic movement in the future. All popular resentment was channeled through the religious fanatical groupings. A rogue nation was born. Fanatics from other countries like S.Arabia found refuge there. These fanatics destabilised OTHER regions, like Bosnia and Kossovo. Then they turned their attention to the evil West. Etcetera.

The Soviets were definitely an expansionist empire under the guise of Communism. I have little doubt that if they had succeeeded in Afghanistan their next objective would have been the Strait of Hormuz. In fact, I believe that's probably the MAIN reason they were in Afghanistan in the FIRST place.


Call me loony; fine, but I know how power-hungry bastards in totalitarian regimes think...and that's exactly what the Soviet Union was.

OK, so the domino theory may not have applied in all cases. That doesn't mean that it didn't apply in some cases.


I believe it is reasonably likely that the objective of the Soviet Union all along was the Strait of Hormuz, and that Afghanistan was just a necessary step along the way.