Your theory is much colder, more pragmatic and down-to-earth. And since it involves huge sums of money, far more believable. Thanks.

Wren -

I agree with you, but I think Al Qaeda might have less concern with the Israeli/Palestinian issue than just propaganda.

I think your reference to driving American troops from the Persian Gulf region is the bigger reason - consider this:

Al Qaeda has never attacked Israel.

In the same respect, Hamas has never attacked America.

I think these groups are largely focused on foreign occupation, and are only concerned with the occupying power, despite the benefit of using multiple issues as propaganda to garner wide support.

I’m not sure bin Laden really thinks he can obtain such a worldwide caliphate…though this is often used by western analysts to prove the evil of Al Qaeda. I think they might be more concerned with just allowing Middle Eastern leaders to be removed from power and an Islamic state established if the people wish it…look at Egypt. Mubarak wouldn’t be in power if not for the US support - if the people of Egypt had their way, the Muslim Brotherhood would win truly open elections. The same is true for Saudi Arabia - the corrupt royal family would be out in a second if not for the massive money the US ships to them every day ($400 million EVERY DAY in oil profits - most of that directly to the royal family and not to the infrastructure of the country.)

Anyway, thanks to all for your comments. It’s good to see so many people really thinking about these important questions.

2. It’s goals, I think, originally matched the answer to the first question, though they morphed as bin Ladin realized he had a spotlight and could use al Qaeda to fight for a complete return to a unified, worldwide fundamentalist Islamic caliphate with him as Caliph. I don’t believe that al Qaeda is a strong enough entity, however, to achieve anything like that. Nor would the vast majority of peaceful Muslims enjoy being forced into fundamentalism and fanaticism.

3. The U.S. can best fight al Qaeda and other global resistance forces by seriously addressing the underlying issues that drive humans to inhuman acts of violence to force others to listen. There is great wealth (and good will) in the West that could be funneled in that direction. Hand in hand with that goes dogged police and investigative work so that groups and individuals who are involved in planning terroristic violence can be stopped, hopefully before it’s carried out. Finally, America needs to act seriously to defend its most vulnerable spots with stringent port security, security around and within nuclear and chemical facilities, and at her borders, whether those coming into the country are doing so by air, sea or land. I don’t mean that we should build stupid fences, only that we should be taking the same grim, serious security precautions against terrorism that Europe has had in place for at least 30 years. It’s impossible to protect everything and everyone, but we can do a much better job, and do it without stripping Americans of their Constitutional rights to privacy.

Good questions. Thanks, Wil.

In a nutshell, yes I believe it was payback. What had once been a private business transaction changed dramatically one George H.W. Bush became president. At that point, the leverage of the U.S. Government was applied to these relationships, which eventually expanded to include the stationing of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, which set Osama bin Laden on his course of revenge towards the U.S.

The BCCI connection is critical here. Wayne Masden has a very revealing article on the relationship between the Bush family ventures, and the various Saudi connections, including the bin Ladens. The link is here.