1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
lawyer [7]
2 years ago
11

Why did Osama bin Laden leave his home country of Saudi Arabia for Afghanistan?

History
2 answers:
sweet [91]2 years ago
6 0
<span>Mostly to fight the Soviets which had occupied Afghanistan. He used his personal connections and wealth to supply resistance against the Soviets there and had even gone on to fight with them. He was also disgusted by Saudi Arabia's apparent reliance on the West.</span>
Sav [38]2 years ago
4 0
He wanted to help other Muslims fight against the Soviet occupation. <span>Bin Laden went to Afghanistan out of religious purposes, to aid the resistance of the mujahideen, or holy "strugglers," against the Soviet-supported government. </span>
You might be interested in
Which group of people contributed most to the spread of Islam in Europe and Asia in the Middle Ages?
brilliants [131]

Answer:idle

Explanation:

Shaj

7 0
3 years ago
As the dark age ended, land-owning nobles overthrew the kings of Greece? True or false.
max2010maxim [7]

Answer:

the answer is false

4 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
To show that they had no intentions of acquiring territory, the United States and Great Britain:
Mrac [35]
In 1941, the Atlantic Charter was signed by Great Britain and the United States, stating that neither country wanted to acquire territory nor would attempt to govern other nations.
6 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
How did Native Americans use European animals such as cattle, horses, and pigs?
aniked [119]

Answer:

Native Americans used the livestock for meat, tallow, hides, transportation, and hauling.

3 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
For either Mapp v. Ohio or Miranda v. Arizona, describe the constitutional issue of the case, and explain how the court's ruling
Lubov Fominskaja [6]

The case <em>Miranda v. Arizona (1966)</em> was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court in which the court established that prosecutors cannot use a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial, unless the person was informed of what is known as "Miranda warning," but voluntarily waived these rights.

A "Miranda warning" is an explanation given to people arrested that informs them of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning. It also informs them of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning. The court's ruling protect those accused of a crime because it prevents them from incriminating themselves. It also reminds them of the importance of an attorney for achieving a successful trial.

4 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • What conclusion does this Christian-themed crown from medieval Ethiopia support? A photograph features an Ethiopian crown decora
    5·1 answer
  • Please help me please And don’t just answer for points!
    8·1 answer
  • How were slaves able to secretly communicate and escape by using the underground railroad? answer key?
    8·1 answer
  • Who was the emperor of China that entrusted Marco Polo to carry out his business?
    7·2 answers
  • How did Cardinal Richelieu help consolidate Louis XIV's power? Select two answers.
    10·2 answers
  • How did the common people gain influence in the roman republic?
    13·1 answer
  • 1. Which best summarizes the effectiveness of the Freedmen’s Bureau?
    6·2 answers
  • What were the causes and effects of the children’s march?
    7·1 answer
  • Which of the following regions is believed to be a major hearth for the domestication of animals?
    9·1 answer
  • Exploration and Colonization of the Americas was competitive between the English, Spanish and French.
    14·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!