Jason Burke described AQ as a loose network of networks and he asserted that OBL along with dozen or so aides and with a hundred or so personnel who were loyal to him may be termed as "al-Qaeda hardcore" rather than an organization at its inception in late 1980s.
In this connection, he stated that during the Soviet-Afghan war, OBL was merely a marginal player.
He asserted it a gross over-simplification to relate every religious militancy with OBL and AQ so as to understand a diverse and complex phenomenon of religious extremism and militancy (Bruke, 2003, 11-22).
Abdullah Yusuf Azzam, a born Palestinian and the former teacher in King Abdul Aziz University of Jeddah in Saudi Arabia where OBL was also studying at that time who got impressed by his ideas and took him as mentor.
Earlier OBL came to Peshawar in January 1980 to serve the cause of Afghan Jihad against Soviet Union.
At Bayt al-Ansar both OBL and Azzam were active in delivering lectures to train mujahedeen in Peshawar (Downing, 2009, 93).
The reason is that the OBL is a negotiable instrument and is normally issued consigning goods under its aegis to the issuing bank.
Since goods cannot be claimed by an applicant until the OBL has been re-consigned, the system fundamentally uses the document as a gate-keeping device.
Now, since the OBL is created by the steamship line (typically using the Mate's Manifest, built off original Bills of Lading), which is officially engaged by the party responsible for payment of corresponding ocean cartage, or their contracted agent, the use of an Incoterm which does not permit the beneficiary (or its designated agent) to be the engaging party, causes there to arise an essential internal conflict within the transaction.
Unfortunately, many bankers who--as a standard practice--will not issue without requiring an OBL as evidentiary documentation, will, at the same time, counsel their applicant clients that it is perfectly fine to issue a documentary LC in "F" term or "E" term format--which essentially does violence to the intention of the documentary Letter of Credit in the first place.
Since most banks have a great deal of trouble in issuing LCs without calling for an OBL (they are sometimes constrained by their charters not to do so), it is a good practice to insist that the Incoterm governing the taking in charge of the goods under the transaction should minimally be CIF, which would require that the engaging party, for the purposes of creation of this essential piece of evidentiary documentation, be the beneficiary or the beneficiary's designated agent.