raharris1973
Well-known member
Was Usama Bin Laden's particular rage at US troops being in Saudi Arabia closer in spirit to a) Progressive post-WWII anti- colonial liberation revolts and WWII era anti-Axis resistance movements, or b) Reactionary rage at feeling emasculated by Americans having to do the traditional Muslim men's role of warrior for his country/people?
Argument in favor of a) - The Saudi government never asked the Saudi people if they were OK with using US forces for defense and attack in Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and after the war. Because of the way the Saudi goverment works, it has no democratic accountability to the people. Therefore the country was "militarily occupied without it's peoples' consent" and UBL was taking a logical "any means necessary" approach to get the Americans to leave.
In some ways he just doing his own version of what the Viet Minh in Vietnam or FLN in Algeria did against the French, the Mau Mau did against the British in Kenya, and the Yugoslav partisans and French Maquis did against the Nazis in Europe. Muslims worldwide are like an oppressed proletariat, Amerindians or ravaged French, Belgian, Polish or Greek villagers, and UBL is defending/or avenging them and thinks they're the same thing.
Argument in favor of b) - UBL grew up in a country that employed foreigners, even non-Muslim ones, in a variety of roles his entire life before the 1990s before flying off the handle with rage. For a few generations by 1990, Saudi Arabia permitted non-Muslims to be guests or hirelings on their soil as diplomats, merchants, technicians, engineers, teachers, prostitutes, entertainers, butlers, maids, doctors, nurses, and laborers. They also did this while enforcing outsized cultural respect or deference to the dominant native culture and religion of the country, and strictly enforcing terms of entry for the Hajj to Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. This didn't cause UBL or the clergy to go nuts about a defiling infidel presence.
But the deployment of US soldiers to Saudi Arabia that the Kingdom welcomed in 1990, and to whom they offered personal bonuses and bounties after the war in 1991 (so arguably sort of a hireling/mercenary/Mameluke role from the Kingdom's point of view), was the unforgivable offensive to Muslim and Arab honor.
Why the difference?
Because all the other jobs infidel foreigners did in the country before, without issue, were, or could be spun as, women's work, servant's work, useful nerd's work, but not Alpha Male's work. But having infidels as soldiers in the country? OMG (OMA). That's a massive violation of status and hierarchy. How can those wimps be the warriors? We've got a bodyguard of infidel nerds? Yeah, we strictly segregate them from our women and our Holy Cities, but if they're within 200 miles of either, they might get ideas and rape or pillage either one - I mean it's practically the same thing already. How can we be men if we stand for this? We better do something about this and eliminate this humiliation, now!
In other words, it came from a similar visceral sense of violated hierarchy and entitlement that led some white Americans during and after WWI and WWII to be enraged at the sight of black Americans in US military uniform and then lynch them or murder them in another manner. The goal of the violence isn't anything that would be universally recognized as social justice or a brighter tomorrow for all, but to punish the infidel for coming into town on horseback or wearing the wrong clothes, for acting like an "uppity" n-word, and to restore the proper hierarchy under the deity and man.
Argument in favor of a) - The Saudi government never asked the Saudi people if they were OK with using US forces for defense and attack in Desert Shield, Desert Storm, and after the war. Because of the way the Saudi goverment works, it has no democratic accountability to the people. Therefore the country was "militarily occupied without it's peoples' consent" and UBL was taking a logical "any means necessary" approach to get the Americans to leave.
In some ways he just doing his own version of what the Viet Minh in Vietnam or FLN in Algeria did against the French, the Mau Mau did against the British in Kenya, and the Yugoslav partisans and French Maquis did against the Nazis in Europe. Muslims worldwide are like an oppressed proletariat, Amerindians or ravaged French, Belgian, Polish or Greek villagers, and UBL is defending/or avenging them and thinks they're the same thing.
Argument in favor of b) - UBL grew up in a country that employed foreigners, even non-Muslim ones, in a variety of roles his entire life before the 1990s before flying off the handle with rage. For a few generations by 1990, Saudi Arabia permitted non-Muslims to be guests or hirelings on their soil as diplomats, merchants, technicians, engineers, teachers, prostitutes, entertainers, butlers, maids, doctors, nurses, and laborers. They also did this while enforcing outsized cultural respect or deference to the dominant native culture and religion of the country, and strictly enforcing terms of entry for the Hajj to Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina. This didn't cause UBL or the clergy to go nuts about a defiling infidel presence.
But the deployment of US soldiers to Saudi Arabia that the Kingdom welcomed in 1990, and to whom they offered personal bonuses and bounties after the war in 1991 (so arguably sort of a hireling/mercenary/Mameluke role from the Kingdom's point of view), was the unforgivable offensive to Muslim and Arab honor.
Why the difference?
Because all the other jobs infidel foreigners did in the country before, without issue, were, or could be spun as, women's work, servant's work, useful nerd's work, but not Alpha Male's work. But having infidels as soldiers in the country? OMG (OMA). That's a massive violation of status and hierarchy. How can those wimps be the warriors? We've got a bodyguard of infidel nerds? Yeah, we strictly segregate them from our women and our Holy Cities, but if they're within 200 miles of either, they might get ideas and rape or pillage either one - I mean it's practically the same thing already. How can we be men if we stand for this? We better do something about this and eliminate this humiliation, now!
In other words, it came from a similar visceral sense of violated hierarchy and entitlement that led some white Americans during and after WWI and WWII to be enraged at the sight of black Americans in US military uniform and then lynch them or murder them in another manner. The goal of the violence isn't anything that would be universally recognized as social justice or a brighter tomorrow for all, but to punish the infidel for coming into town on horseback or wearing the wrong clothes, for acting like an "uppity" n-word, and to restore the proper hierarchy under the deity and man.