i think an important point elided by several authors several authors (There is no alternative to war By David Rieff; Fault Lines by Peter Beinart) who argue that (reaction against) u.s. foreign policy is not driving bin laden -- most analysis i've seen from the left instead suggests that u.s. foreign policy in the middle east (and elsewhere) provides bin laden and others with fertile grounds for recruits. there is a big difference between the two points.
as for bin laden, though, i think this interview is instructive. do you suppose this rhetoric is the same he uses when speaking to his followers, or is this just for the west. and if so, to what end?
from Transcript of Osama Bin Ladin interview by Peter Arnett (1997)
BIN LADIN: I do not know Ramzi Yousef. What the American government and Pakistani intelligence has been reporting is not true at all. But I say if the American government is serious about avoiding the explosions inside the U.S., then let it stop provoking the feelings of 1,250 million Muslims. Those hundreds of thousands who have been killed or displaced in Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, do have brothers and relatives. They would make of Ramzi Yousef a symbol and a teacher. The U.S. will drive them to transfer the battle into the United States. Everything is made possible to protect the blood of the American citizen while the bloodshed of Muslims is allowed in every place. With this kind of behavior, the U.S. government is hurting itself, hurting Muslims and hurting the American people.
www.ishipress.com/osamaint.htm
i had some problems reaching the site; here is a link to google cahched version:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:zDgdnynKt1Q:www.ishipress.com/osama int.htm