Osama Bin Laden explained the origin of the term 'Al-Qaeda', in a videotaped interview with Al Jazeera journalist Tayseer Alouni in October 2001: He said that the name 'al-Qaeda' was established a long time ago by "mere chance"
"The late Abu Ebeida El-Banashiri established the training camps for our Mujahedeen against Russia's terrorism. We used to call the training camp al-Qaeda. The name stayed"
In Arabic qa'idah bayanat is 'database', where bayanat is data and qa'idah is base, and 'Al' is simply 'THE'. Qaeda is 'BASE', and thus Al-Qaeda means 'The Base'. Mujahedeen means, 'those who struggle', so putting the two together Mujahedeen are 'those who struggle at the base'.
The late UK politician Robin Cook, who served as Foreign Secretary and Leader of the House of Commons, described Al-Qaeda as meaning; "the database" and a product of western miscalculation. Cook wrote: "Al-Qaida, literally ‘the database’, was originally the computer file of the thousands of Mujahedeen who had been recruited and trained with help from the CIA and Osama Bin Laden in order to defeat the Russian terrorists". In truth, the U.S. created the Mujahedeen, and Osama Bin Laden led them under C.I.A. approval and with U.S. assistance to fight the Russian invaders. Or, 'Russian terrorists' as Osama Bin Laden called them. But notice how that tag stuck and was later given to the Mujahedeen and to Osama Bin Laden and his followers, and has now become a by-word for every organization which struggles against 'democracy' or 'the west'. Is it not the same as those native Indians who once struggled against blue coats invading their lands who branded the native Americans 'savages'?
The Soviet war in Afghanistan, also known as the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, was a nine-year conflict involving Soviet Union forces supporting the Marxist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan (PDPA) government against the mujahedeen resistance. The latter group found support from a variety of sources including the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other Muslim nations in the context of the Cold War. This conflict was concurrent to the 1979 Iranian Revolution and the Iran–Iraq War and it ended on February 15, 1989. Almost by sheer coincidence, that year the Berlin Wall also fell on November 9 1989, and Soviet Russia became a Democratic Republic. i.e. It became a 'democracy' and subsequently ceased to be Russian terrorist invaders of Afghanistan.
Osama Bin Laden
Bin Laden was raised as a devout Wahhabi Muslim and from 1968 to 1976 he attended the "elite" secular Al-Thager Model School. Bin Laden studied economics and business administration at King Abdulaziz University. He believes that the restoration of Sharia law will set things right in the Muslim world, and that all other ideologies such as pan-Arabism, socialism, communism and democracy, must be opposed. He and his Mujahedeen continue to struggle to 'maintain their way of life' in opposition to all other 'ideology' other than his interpreted 'Sharia Law'.
Since the late 1970's, Afghanistan has suffered continuous and brutal civil war in addition to foreign interventions in the form of the 1979 Soviet invasion and the recent 2001 U.S. led invasion that toppled the Taliban government. NATO members consider the Taliban to be a terrorist organization and it is at this point I can't help bringing to mind the native American peoples who once proudly fought to maintain their way of life yet were then deemed to be "savages". Or those others who throughout history, have resisted as 'terrorists' one day only to become freedom fighters, politicians and presidents the next. Example Northern Ireland where one time terrorists are now firmly considered 'politicians'.I think in today's context we could say that 'savages', or terrorists, who struggle in Afghanistan, are struggling against 'the west' in a similar if not entirely different way as the native American Indians once struggled against the blue coat 'terrorists' who invaded their homelands who sadly terrorised and massacred their people and disposed of their culture. Naturally, native Americans fought savagely' in order to keep a way of life, their ideology, which was entirely different to that of the blue coats. Only native Americans surely fought to keep Buffalo too so as to feed their people, whereas 'blue coats' fought for gold. and killed the Buffalo for their hides just to leave the carcass rotting because they had no use for it. Thus ending the native Indians ability to survive.
Today, the fight in Afghanistan is over opium, oil, gold, and precious minerals, in a strikingly similar way to those days past when the white man fought and massacred Cheyenne and other native Americans simply because they struggled to keep their homelands. The Great Plains and the Black Hills of south Dakota along with their way of life and the Buffalo which they needed to stay alive. Native Americans had no use for gold because it belonged to the earth and to their spiritual Black Hills which the 'invaders' took from them for no other reason other than to fulfill their own sense of greed. Yet ignoring the spiritual beliefs of the native American Indian along with his right to enjoy his homeland and the mountains where he lived and his spiritual father had reigned, in peace for centuries before he was invaded by those 'terrorists', the pale faces, the blue coats and white man who came from the 'east'. and killed his way of life. We were of course easterners then rather than westerners which we are today.
This was also at a time in the mid 1800's that just happened to be occurring around the same time as British opium trade in China. When acting against a ban on the trade of opium by the Chinese Emperor, British merchants continued to trade it illegally which eventually led to the Opium Wars after 25% of the Chinese people had become addicted to opium despite that it had been classed an illegal substance in Britain itself. So putting it this way, I guess in the 1800's British merchants would rightly have been considered criminal drug traffickers and invaders who terrorised the native Chinese people. Yet do we think of ourselves as 'terrorists'?
Newly arrived immigrants to America were considered 'terrorists' who 'terrorized' the native way of life as they massacred many native Americans much in the same way the British Empire massacred native Chinese in the opium wars, and much the same way that western super powers now 'massacre' those who are struggling to maintain their way of life in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's like, "what's changed in 150 years", we're still invading the native homelands of others?
Many Afghan's surely didn't want Marxism and they surely don't want 'democracy' otherwise they wouldn't have struggled against Marxism with the Soviet Union and against democracy with us 'the west'. It seems many want instead, the same as what native American Indians wanted surely before they were removed to reservations. Or perhaps they want the same as 19th century Chinese wanted before they were introduced to opium by British merchants? Maybe, like the native American Indians, all they wanted was just to be left alone to go in peace and to live their own way of life with their own ideology or spiritual beliefs and don't want our way of life? I wonder why?
Are we in an 'ideological struggle'?
Well yes we are. We do of course struggle against those who don't want our brand of democracy, don't want our laws, and obviously don't want our way of life. But to simplify it even further, we're in a struggle against those who don't want a McDonald's in their towns and villages which would 'destroy' their own way of life. We can't leave aside the question of right and wrong of course, but really you can't answer the question of who is right sufficiently well without giving some meaning to what is right or wrong if wanting to implant your ideology on to others. The place I think I'd start with determining the answer to that, is by asking whether one has more right than another, and in answering that question then the answer must be no. However it gets more difficult to answer, when you consider whether our way of life is sustainable, and you realise it is not that sustainable without taking the resources we use to sustain it, from others, or in seeing decisions made to impose democracy and a way of life on to others who may not want it. Like we did in the opium wars in China, and like early Americans did when they imposed their way of life on to native Americans, which they described as 'savages'. i.e. We 'needed' to, in order to sustain and preserve our own way of life.Another ideological struggle is occurring in Austria, for instance, where the Sunday Mail reports neo-Nazism is on the rise. It says; "In Austria's recent general election, nearly 30 per cent of voters backed extremist right-wing parties", and it describes how many still visit the birthplace of Adolf Hitler. They describe an investigation which says that "Fascism is once again threatening to erupt across Europe" and again we really have to ask ourselves why. Why do some men continue to struggle against democracy other than in the ongoing pursuit of their own brand of ideology, (their way of life), which just happens to conflict with ours. Are "they" all "mad men" simply because their ideology is different to our own?
We can surely see that men have always fought to either impose or to protect their own way of life and that 'we' are not that much different in that sense since we either all 'struggle' to preserve it or struggle to impose it upon others who don't want it, for ideological differences have always existed and so has war, and so have 'savages' and 'terrorists'. It just depends which side you're on as to which one you are, and whether you live in a house , a trench or a cave it really doesn't matter that much when you're talking about a mans 'ideas' because surely they're all right until they seek to impose their ideology on to others who don't want it.
Who's right and who's wrong?
In the strictest sense, George W Bush and his allies imposed democracy in Iraq and seeks to do the same in Afghanistan. Early Americans imposed a way of life to native Indians which they didn't want and Britain imposed opium into China against the wishes of its Emperor. Adolf Hitler sought to impose Fascism upon Europe, Russia sought to impose Marxism in Afghanistan, and Osama bin Laden and the Mujhadedeen seeks to impose Sharia Law into all muslim states. So who is right and who is wrong, or are they all right or all wrong?The war that was never meant to be?
Here's an audience and a panel which asks why are we in Afghanistan:
To my way of thinking, I'd have to settle for anyone seeking to impose ideology upon another, being wrong. I'd also think perhaps if one is committing an act of aggression, then he is wrong too. I don't necessarily think just because someone doesn't want democracy, they are automatically wrong, for really all they have to do to see that democracy itself is wrong is to look back in history to see that the imposition of or defense of democracy, whichever side you want to choose, is littered with campaigns of war, bloodshed, and destruction, which to some would appear less peaceful than the environment they themselves struggle toward which to them is a peaceful one albeit they keep having to defend it in wars against those who seek to take it away. An exception of course would be where an ideologue steps out with an armed force to impose it upon other nations by hostile acts of aggression, which I really doubt will end until all natives are either on the reservation or dead in which case no ideology could be right if it agreed to impose it on others.
A moral my father used to quote me was; "Here lies the body of Michael McKay, who died maintaining his right of way. He was right, dead right as he sped along, but he's just as dead right as if he'd been wrong". I guess he was meaning we're all wrong if we are adamant in our own mind that we can't be wrong, but whether we're right or wrong doesn't matter because we're all going to die either by a bullet or by natural causes. So in that sense, I'd have to lean with my support toward those who live a life of peace like the native American Indians once did before they were 'invaded' by 'white men' and 'blue coats' with their silly ideas of 'democracy, which to native Indians would not have been too much unlike Fascism I doubt, only their 'terrorists' wore different uniforms and had a lot more firepower. Perhaps it's just governments who are wrong then and not individuals or groups of individuals who lack the firepower to impose their way of life on others.
Iraq was illegal and we have no moral or legitimate cause to be there other than the fact that we are there under a hostile invasion of another country and possess the military might to stay. Whether or not Saddam was a dictator, that was not the reason Iraq was invaded, it was for WMD which proved to be non-existent.
As for Afghanistan, we're told it was to get rid of the Taliban. The Taliban prevented the growth and spread of Opium, and beyond that all we know is what we're told by a media which is undoubtedly known to be biased. We do not know the truth except that some people "we are told to call" terrorists, want to run their own country and the U.S. won't allow it. Yet who are we to decide? - Were the Taliban committing genocide or something, or did it simply pose a threat to the globalisation plan which will enlarge itself to add yet more of the worlds resources into the clutches of capitalist regimes? I never saw the Taliban as "my" enemy as I didn't even know it existed until Afghanistan was invaded. Again, I can draw a comparison between the Taliban who the U.S. deem to be "terrorists", and the native American Indians which the U.S. once deemed to be "savages". In both scenarios, the result is the same. - No culture for the "savage" and resources (gold and now oil), for the "Blue Coats" with the help of more innocents who they expect to die in their name.
It is time men stopped dying on both sides and Obama has proven himself not to be a peacemaker but a warmonger. His words are untrue and he lies when he says there will be change. Just as men before him lied when they promised the Indians peace. In his case, I'd think today's savages (the terrorists), would say that particular black man speak with forked tongue.
What if the south had won?
