Bin Laden is a religious nutter with a Muad'dib-sized messiah complex. The fact he (or his family) made his fortune trading oil with America does not endear it to him in the least - as far as he's concerned, they're just infidels, and if they've helped him make the money he uses to fund his global jihad, they're stupid infidels. But of course, he knew that already.
Exactly - bin Laden wants to be the khilafa, the head of an Islamic empire, in the model of (lets face it) the great majority of Muslim history.
What bin Laden taps into in the minds of the Muslim-in-the-street - in both the Arab middle east and the wider world, including Britain - is a hatred of "the West" (which is, of course, no more a single entity than "the East") which has some causal basis in American foreign policy. Of course, it's (as always) much more complicated than that: taking into account the Soviet invasion of Aghanistan and the supression of the Chechen independence struggle, anti-Muslim prejudice in India, Britain's involvement in the histories of both Iran and Iraq, the Israel/Palestine situation and the perceived 'enforced secularisation' of Muslims in France and I wouldn't be surprised if some Muslims may be feeling like the whole world's against them. To balance that you have to take into account that the vast majority of violence committed against Muslims is perpetrated by other Muslims.
Yeah, and what I'm saying is, is this hatred justified? I know to most liberal westerners, it seems very straight-forward. We carved the Middle East up, we supported some regimes (whose citizens consquently resent our involvement), and alienated others (whose citizens look favourably upon us): it's very transparent and self-serving.
But, this is problematic for a number of reasons.
1. That's the liberal reading. What annoys western liberals and what annoys Islamic fundamentalists are not the same (in fact liberalism is exactly what many fundamentalist scholars object to - Qutb for e.g.). It's not imperialism that they object to, but our imperialism as opposed to their own.
2. The arab street has never had self-determination. It has always been exploited, and it has always been exploiting. The whole history of the region has been one of constant conquest and imperialist expansion, beginning in the early days of Islamic history with the famous victory at Yarmuk.
3. The defeat at the gates of Vienna (on Sept 11th!) in the 15th century marked the beginnig of the end of the expansion of the Islamic Empire because the Muslim world was overtaken by the West in terms of technological and political development. They never recovered. That's just what happened. For the Muslim world to achieve "parity" with the West, it will have to develop and master western institutions and techologies, or defeat the West in battle. It's pretty clear what option the fundamentalists choose, calling on historical and religious precident (jihad and the doctrine of fatah), but these are unfortunately non-starters and will ultimately only set back the Middle East further. Who will be blamed for that? The Middle East wants its time in the sun (again), and who can blame it, but also, who can achieve it but them?
4. Scapegoats. The Jews! The West! The Masons! How common are these themes? I find them hilarious, really. But simmering ressentiment, reactionary historicism (all salafism is, basically) and inability to produce self-criticism lead one way: further down the spiral. What about the thirteen Jews hung in Baghdad town square after the revolution in the '50s, Iraqis dancing in the streets? Where does that impulse come from? Also from tthe experience of Western imperialism?
5. Muslim agency. Is the West to blame for all the problems in the Middle East? Arabs experience the total mismanagement of their nations by their own governments (who often came to power through grass routes revoltions), yet their own governments are not without influence and certainly stand to benefit deflecting criticism onto the West. Likewise Israel is a useful safety valve.
