Yes basically it has to do with the lust for power. I think Osma is one sick man. It is weird how these people can get others to follow them. What about Jonestown and Heaven's Gate? That is the kind of leader he reminds me of. Leads his followers to suicide. Really sick stuff.
We have to accept the situation, you can't preach peace and love to people that are totally machiavellian. Terrorism is the ultimate form of "ends justifies the means". You cannot pacify or bargain with people like that. Hassan I Sabbah, leader of the assasins said "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". What is Osama besides the leader of the modern day assasins ? As far as that letter goes, it is further proof that no matter what we do short of becoming the Taliban, we are a target. We could pull completely out of the middle east, that would only encourage them and make it easier for them to operate. The time for sympathy is before the fight starts, not afterwards. Sympathy DURING a fight is weakness, and they are counting on that.
Osama has spun quite a tale, fabricated a whole set of premises and justifications for his bloodthirst and narcissistic power mania. If it were not the United States and Israel, it would be some other target. And if each and every complaint he listed were to be "relieved" so to speak, he and those like him would draw up a new list of greivances. Bin Laden, a pathological liar and blackmailer sprung from a primitive and corrupt tribe. The terrorist has no ultimate goal except power, as Arafat has shown. There is no end game. Its all in the process. That's why they all have to be killed.
We are a target no matter what? Then what is the rationale? If pulling out of the middle east is not a factor, then why didn't al qaeda target any other non-muslim country? Hatred of Freedom? -- Why doesn't he wish to punish any other free people, say, Norwegians or Canadians? Aversion to Lifestyle? -- There are much more drug- and sex-free societies than the puritanical US. Jealousy of Wealth? -- Then why not hit Germany or Japan?
He adds to his power not by conquering nearby lands and people, but by starting a war with an unbeatable superpower? And his goal being to usurp the government of the US by flying planes into buildings? Maybe martyrdom, but increasing power seems impossible.
what the !@#$@? you know, as much as i love america, i have to admit that i'm yet to encounter a group of people more ignorant of international affairs then americans. get your heads out the sand you dolts! "it's all about power". what a complete crock of shit. like it or not, america has an udeniable history of meddling in other countries' affairs - with debatable justification - that causes certain portions of those populations to "lose" something as a result; wealth, power, land, lives, for example. it's laughably naive not to expect some out of that group to take action against the perceived unfairness. it's simply undeniable that america's tacit support of terror tactics by certain groups in other countries has caused far more deaths - and more horrible deaths (if you can believe it) - than the 3 or 4 thousand taken in 9/11. of course, if you're american, you'd probably never know it. (or else deny it)
Tacit support? Caused more deaths? That's rather ambiguous. Why don't you elaborate on this, in detail as to what kinds of support for which terror tactics and practiced by whom, and whose specific deaths they have caused. (Let me guess before hand what you will say. It was Mr. Sharon, in the Gaza strip, with the M16.)
just off the top of my head, how about the Rios Montt government in Guatemala? However many deaths you want to attribute to outright genocide (as opposed to 'civil war'), the numbers are at an absolute minimum in the low thousands. of course, a few thousand dead indians doesn't have the same emotional impact as a couple of skyscrapers worth of middle class new yorkers, but it's human life all the same. as for israel, i wasn't going to mention anything about it, but yeah. how can anyone possibly deny that america has completely favored one side in a very muddy dispute because of political pressure at home (think jewish lobby groups) and because she wanted a 'friend' in the middle east? whether you wanna call it right or wrong, it happened. that's my point. mine wasn't meant to be one of those 'unamerican' posts. i was simply stating that typical american joe has very little clue of what is happening in the world and stands aghast when some group of people 'disagrees' (to put it mildly) with him enough to pull a 9/11. then you hear all these oddball excuses like "it's all about power" that completely fail to acknowledge the point that not everybody views the effects of (or reasoning behind) american foreign policy the same way (shock horror!) - regardless, let me emphasize, of whether or not that foreign policy is 'right'
I don't see any detailed examination and proof of the cause of deaths you attribute to American "tacit support". Off the top of your head is suggests little available for back up of your argument. As for the "Power" charges, it is appropriate in the case of Bin Laden. Bin Laden collaborated with the Americans in Afghanistan in the 1980s and did so willingly. He proposed to the Saudis to raise an army with Saudi financing to battle Iraq in Kuwait in 1991 and now he is the champion of the Iraqi people. Bin Laden's prior actions and aims had been in accord with American Foreign policy, but since the gulf war they have not. Interesting.
just quickly "off the top of my head" does not mean there's nothing behind it; although you might very well wish it to. in this particular case, it hardly requires arguing since it's so well documented. nevertheless, i'll give you your evidence. interesting though, that someone who just made blind assertions - with no evidence - about what osama would or wouldn't do and why he would/wouldn't do it would be such a stickler.. ps - i'm glad to see you edited your post, because i obviously did not in any way imply that dead indians required an equal number of dead americans in return. it does appear to betray the bias through which you're reading my posts though.