The liberals, a group that believe in a directionless society where the only things that bind us are commerce and individual "liberty," are right now shaking scared by the threats made to the Western liberal democracy. While they probably were hoping to import as many people from Iraq and Afghanistan as possible and use them as cheap working labour over in America and Europe - like they did with the Mexicans, they're now beginning to see the start of a major conflict between the traditionalist Islamic teachings and the secular-liberal society we've built up over the years. Two radically different societies clash and the results are ethnic conflicts and waves of violent opposition.

A theory goes that, in any war, there's always a winner, even if all parties involved lose their men. This theory is interesting, because it suggests that war is not only an external mechanism in which we can observe obvious effects such as bombings, propaganda, minefields and super tanks. There's another side to war: the underlying motives, not seldom managed by a few people, who secretly see wealth and power being transferred from one hand to another. Same thing goes with economic crashes: the people lose, but the wealthy oligarchs don't. Money never disappears and blood is never spilled for nothing.

In the article Iraq and Washington's 'seeds of democracy', F. William Engdahl brilliantly points out that the war on Iraq always served such as "secret motive," in this case, the complete overtake of the nation's agricultural production:

The USAID aim is to 'help' the new government phase out farm subsidies. 'The Minister of Agriculture has been quite good in doing that,' Pool said. State enterprises, such as the Mesopotamia Seed Co., 'need to be spun off and privatized,' he declared. He didn't mention who would have the cash in war-torn Iraq to buy such a state seed company. Only cash-rich foreign agri-business giants such as Monsanto or Cargill could be likely buyers. Control their seeds and control the food.

Not to mention the control over oil and the neutralized threat to Israel, whom we know as the close friend to US foreign policies. In this light, Osama bin Laden can and should no longer be seen as an evil terrorist. While one could easily agree that it wasn't very clever to attack the US in the way he did, the act was largely symbolic. It proved that the foundation to the "supreme" Western nation is shaking. For Bin Laden, the situation was and is still today, critical. Facing enemies both from Israel and from an increasingly occupied Middle East, controlled by the globalist power to install free market capitalism and liberal democracy, the world-famous terrorist is at the same time a victim. And he knows it.
While the threat previously came from the Soviet Union and its destructive global spreading, the Left has become a Neo-Left in tune with the new liberal societies in the West. The two polar opposites are no longer opposites, but walk hand in hand to continue globalization at all costs, even if it ends in economic exploitation, world wars, and environmental collapse. Even though many leftists are quick to condemn the imperialist foreign politics of the US, they forget that their internationalist agenda supports the same belief; the break-up of nations and the formation of a world government where people are united - not by ethnicity, culture or common values - but by commercial forces and material prosperity.