Level:
Correct: 0
Incorrect: 0
Marks: 0/0
Exam Practice
Subject:
Topics:
Avg
score:
–
Topics
done:
0/8

Al-Qaeda

Practise 50 exam-style questions on Al-Qaeda for AQA GCSE History (Gulf and Afghanistan 1990-2009). Write your answer as you would in the exam and get it marked in seconds against the mark scheme, point by point, with an AI tutor on hand if you get stuck.

  • 50 questions
  • 1–20 marks each
  • Instant marking
  • No sign-up needed
20 questions, marked as you go

Sample questions with model answers

Here are 4 of the questions in this topic, each with a model answer, an explanation of why it earns the marks and the mark scheme an examiner would use.

Question 1

2 marks

Give two aims of al-Qaeda in the 1990s.

Model answer

One aim of al-Qaeda was to force US troops to leave Saudi Arabia, the land of Islam's holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. Another aim was to overthrow governments in Muslim countries, such as the Saudi royal family, which bin Laden saw as corrupt puppets of the USA, and replace them with strict Islamic rule.

Explanation

Al-Qaeda's aims were set out in bin Laden's 1996 declaration of war and the 1998 fatwa: removing US forces from Saudi Arabia, ending US support for Israel and the sanctions on Iraq, and overthrowing 'apostate' Muslim governments. Its long-term goal was a strict Islamic state, or caliphate, across the Muslim world.

Mark scheme
  1. 1 mark

    One valid aim of al-Qaeda, e.g. to drive US (western) troops out of Saudi Arabia / the Middle East; to end US support for Israel / to liberate Palestine and Jerusalem; to overthrow pro-western governments in Muslim countries (e.g. the Saudi royal family, Egypt); to set up an Islamic state (caliphate) ruled by strict Sharia law; to end the sanctions and attacks on Iraq; to attack/kill Americans and their allies; to unite Muslims in a jihad against the West.

    Any one of the aims listed. Do not accept vague answers such as 'to cause trouble'.

  2. 1 mark

    A second, different valid aim from the list above.

    Must be different from the first aim (e.g. 'remove US troops from Saudi Arabia' and 'remove US troops from Arabia' are the same aim).

Question 2

4 marks

Source A: a summary of the front-page editorial in the French newspaper Le Monde on 12 September 2001, written by its editor, Jean-Marie Colombani. Le Monde had often been critical of US foreign policy.

The editorial's headline was 'Nous sommes tous Américains' ('We are all Americans'). It began by saying that, at such a tragic moment, when words could not express the shock people felt, the first thought was that 'we are all Americans'.

Source A shows sympathy for the USA after the attacks of 11 September 2001. How do you know?

Explain your answer by referring to Source A and your contextual knowledge.

Model answer

Source A shows sympathy for the USA because its headline, 'We are all Americans', means that the French people stood alongside the American people as if they had been attacked themselves. The editorial describes a moment so tragic that words could not express the shock. This reflects the scale of the attacks on 11 September 2001, in which nearly 3,000 people from more than 90 countries were killed in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. The provenance makes the sympathy especially striking. Le Monde was one of France's most respected newspapers and had often been critical of American foreign policy, so if even it declared that 'we are all Americans', this shows how widely the world shared America's grief. It was written the day after the attacks, when the shock was greatest. The source fits the wider reaction at the time: on 12 September NATO invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history, treating the attacks as an attack on all its members, and President Chirac of France was the first foreign leader to visit the USA after the attacks.

Explanation

A Level 2 answer explains the headline in context and uses the provenance - a French newspaper often critical of the USA, writing the day after the attacks - to show how strong international sympathy was. Linking it to NATO's Article 5 or the UN's condemnation adds contextual knowledge.

Mark scheme
  1. 4 marks

    Levels of response (4 marks).
    Level 2 (3-4 marks): Developed analysis of Source A based on its content and/or provenance, supported by relevant contextual knowledge, e.g. explains that the headline expresses complete solidarity with the American people, and that this is especially significant because it came from a leading French newspaper that was often critical of the USA, the day after attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people from many countries; links it to wider international sympathy, such as NATO invoking Article 5 for the first time (12 September 2001), the UN Security Council's condemnation, or President Chirac being the first foreign leader to visit the USA after the attacks.
    Level 1 (1-2 marks): Simple analysis of Source A based on content and/or provenance, e.g. 'It says we are all Americans', with little or no contextual knowledge.
    0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.

    Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): content - 'We are all Americans' identifies the French with the victims; it describes the attacks as a tragedy beyond words; placed as the front-page headline, showing its importance. Provenance - Le Monde, one of France's most respected newspapers, which had often criticised US policy, so the sympathy is striking; written on 12 September, in the immediate shock of the attacks, when the scale of the loss was being reported. Context - nearly 3,000 people from over 90 countries were killed, including French citizens; on 12 September NATO invoked Article 5 (an attack on one is an attack on all) for the first time in its history, and the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1368 condemning the attacks; President Chirac visited Washington and New York on 18-19 September; candlelit vigils were held around the world and in Britain the US national anthem was played at the Changing of the Guard; this sympathy later faded, and in 2003 France strongly opposed the invasion of Iraq.

Question 3

12 marks

Source B: a summary of the 'Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places', issued by Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan in August 1996 and published in Al-Quds Al-Arabi, a London-based Arabic newspaper.

The declaration says that the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia is the greatest aggression Muslims have suffered since the death of the Prophet Muhammad. It attacks the Saudi royal family for allowing the troops in and for failing to rule properly by Islamic law. It lists the suffering of Muslims in Palestine, Iraq, Lebanon, Bosnia and Chechnya, and calls on Muslims to drive the Americans out of the Arabian Peninsula, using secret, fast-moving forces because the enemy is so powerful, and to boycott American goods.

Source C: a summary of an interview with Osama bin Laden by the American television network ABC, recorded at a camp in Afghanistan in May 1998 and broadcast in the USA.

Bin Laden said that all Americans were targets, whether soldiers or civilians. He said that US troops must leave the Arabian Peninsula and that the USA must stop supporting Israel. He claimed that the American withdrawal from Somalia in 1993 showed that American soldiers were weak and would run away when attacked.

How useful are Sources B and C to an historian studying the aims of al-Qaeda?

Explain your answer using Sources B and C and your contextual knowledge.

Model answer

Source B is very useful for studying al-Qaeda's aims because it is Osama bin Laden's own declaration of war, so it shows directly what he wanted. Its main demand is that the Americans be driven out of the Arabian Peninsula, which he calls the greatest aggression since the death of the Prophet. This fits what I know: US troops had arrived in Saudi Arabia in August 1990 to defend it against Iraq, and several thousand stayed after the Gulf War, close to Islam's holiest cities, Mecca and Medina. Source B also shows a second aim, overthrowing the Saudi royal family, which bin Laden attacked for letting the troops in, and it shows that he wanted to appear as the defender of Muslims everywhere, from Palestine to Chechnya. The provenance adds to its value but also limits it. It was issued in August 1996, just after Sudan had expelled bin Laden under Saudi and US pressure, so it is full of anger at the Saudi government. It was written in Arabic for Muslims, so it uses religious language and stresses the Saudis' failings in order to win supporters. The advice to use secret, fast-moving forces is useful because it shows that al-Qaeda planned terrorism, not a conventional war.

Source C is useful because it shows how al-Qaeda's aims had widened by 1998. In 1996 bin Laden had targeted American troops; in Source C he says that all Americans, soldiers or civilians, are targets, and he adds ending US support for Israel. This matches the fatwa of February 1998, which made killing Americans a religious duty. His comment on Somalia is useful because it shows why he thought terrorism would work: he believed the USA would withdraw if it suffered casualties, as it had after the deaths of US soldiers in Mogadishu in 1993. However, the provenance means it must be used carefully. It was an interview for American television, so bin Laden wanted to frighten Americans and make al-Qaeda seem powerful, and he may have exaggerated. Its timing makes it especially valuable, though: less than three months later al-Qaeda bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, proving that the threats were real.

Overall, the two sources are very useful together. Both come from al-Qaeda's leader, so they show its stated aims more directly than any outside observer could, and together they show the aims growing from expelling US troops in 1996 to a war on all Americans by 1998. Their weakness is that they are propaganda: they show what bin Laden wanted people to believe, and they say little about the long-term aim of a strict Islamic state or the different priorities of others in al-Qaeda, such as al-Zawahiri.

Explanation

Level 4 needs a judgement on both sources based on content and provenance: who wrote each, when, for which audience and why. Here the key points are that both come from bin Laden (direct evidence of his aims but propaganda), that B was aimed at Muslims and C at Americans, and that comparing 1996 with 1998 shows the aims widening to include civilians.

Mark scheme
  1. 12 marks

    Levels of response (12 marks).
    Level 4 (10-12 marks): Complex evaluation of both sources with a sustained judgement about their usefulness for studying al-Qaeda's aims, based on content AND provenance, supported by relevant contextual knowledge, e.g. explains that both come from bin Laden himself and so reveal his priorities directly (removing US troops from Saudi Arabia, ending US support for Israel, overthrowing the Saudi royal family, attacking Americans), but that each was written for a purpose and an audience - B to rally Muslims and attack the Saudi government, C to frighten Americans - which shapes what they stress; may judge that together they are very useful because they show how the aims widened from 1996 to 1998.
    Level 3 (7-9 marks): Developed evaluation of both sources based on content and/or provenance, supported by contextual knowledge, e.g. explains what each shows about al-Qaeda's aims and how the author or audience affects its usefulness.
    Level 2 (4-6 marks): Simple evaluation of one or both sources based on content and/or provenance, e.g. 'Source B is useful because it is by bin Laden and says he wanted US troops to leave Saudi Arabia.'
    Level 1 (1-3 marks): Basic analysis of one or both sources, e.g. describing their content, with little or no evaluation.
    0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.

    Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): Source B content - shows the central grievance, US troops in the 'land of the two holy places' (Mecca and Medina) since the Gulf War of 1990-91; shows the aim of overthrowing the Saudi royal family, which bin Laden saw as corrupt and un-Islamic (the 'near enemy'); shows al-Qaeda presented itself as defending Muslims everywhere (Palestine, Iraq under sanctions, Bosnia, Chechnya); its advice on secret, fast-moving forces shows a strategy of terrorism rather than open war. Source B provenance - bin Laden's own public statement of his aims, so authoritative; issued in August 1996 soon after his expulsion from Sudan, when he was angry with the Saudis and needed support; written for a Muslim audience in Arabic, so it stresses religion and Saudi failings; published in London to reach Muslims worldwide; at this stage it targets American troops rather than all Americans. Source C content - shows a widening of the aims: all Americans, including civilians, are targets; adds the USA's support for Israel; shows bin Laden believed the USA was weak and could be driven out by attacks (Somalia 1993). Source C provenance - an interview for an American audience three months after the February 1998 fatwa and less than three months before the embassy bombings of August 1998, so it was meant to frighten Americans and show al-Qaeda's power; bin Laden chose what to say and may have exaggerated his strength. Limitations - both are propaganda by bin Laden, so they show his stated aims, not whether al-Qaeda could achieve them; they say little about the long-term aim of a caliphate under strict Sharia law, or about how al-Qaeda was organised; other members (e.g. al-Zawahiri, who wanted to overthrow the Egyptian government) had their own priorities. Possible judgement: very useful together because they come from al-Qaeda's leader and show the shift from attacking US troops to attacking all Americans, but they must be used with knowledge of their purpose.

Question 4

20 marks

'The Soviet war in Afghanistan was the most important reason for the rise of al-Qaeda.'

How far do you agree with this statement?

Explain your answer.

[16 marks] [SPaG 4 marks]

Model answer

Al-Qaeda grew from a small group of Arab veterans in 1988 into an organisation able to attack the USA in 2001. The Soviet war in Afghanistan was essential to its rise, because without it al-Qaeda would not have existed. However, the war does not explain why al-Qaeda turned against the USA or how it became so strong, which depended on the Gulf War, bin Laden's leadership and the protection of the Taliban.

The Soviet war created the foundations of al-Qaeda. After the Soviet invasion in December 1979, thousands of Arab volunteers travelled to Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight a jihad against the atheist superpower. Osama bin Laden used his wealth and contacts to raise money, and in 1984 he and Abdullah Azzam set up the Services Bureau in Peshawar to recruit and house volunteers. The war gave bin Laden a heroic reputation, gave thousands of men military training, and created a network of camps, donors and contacts across the Muslim world. Al-Qaeda itself was founded in Peshawar in August 1988, as the Soviets prepared to leave, to keep these fighters together. The Soviet withdrawal in February 1989 convinced bin Laden that faith could defeat a superpower, and that belief later encouraged him to take on the USA. The war also left Afghanistan in chaos, which allowed the Taliban to take power in the 1990s.

However, the Soviet war did not make the USA al-Qaeda's enemy. In fact, the USA had funded the mujahideen. The turning point was the Gulf War. When Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, King Fahd rejected bin Laden's offer to defend Saudi Arabia and invited US-led forces instead. Bin Laden believed that non-Muslim troops in the land of Mecca and Medina were an insult to Islam, and when US troops stayed after 1991 this became al-Qaeda's main grievance, as his 1996 'Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places' shows. US support for Israel and the sanctions on Iraq added to the anger that al-Qaeda could use.

Al-Qaeda's rise also depended on bin Laden's leadership. He gave it a clear strategy of attacking the 'far enemy', declared in the 1998 fatwa, and used interviews with CNN and ABC and broadcasts on Al Jazeera to make it famous and attract recruits and money. Finally, the protection of the Taliban after 1996 was vital. When Sudan expelled bin Laden, al-Qaeda was weakened, but in Afghanistan Mullah Omar protected him despite US missile strikes in 1998 and UN sanctions in 1999. There, al-Qaeda trained thousands of recruits and planned the 9/11 attacks.

In conclusion, I partly agree. The Soviet war was the most important long-term reason, because it created the fighters, money, networks, reputation and confidence without which al-Qaeda could not have existed at all. However, it was the Gulf War that turned al-Qaeda against the USA, and it was bin Laden's leadership and the Taliban's protection that made it powerful enough to strike on 11 September 2001. The Soviet war made al-Qaeda possible; the events of the 1990s made it the organisation that attacked America.

Explanation

Top answers distinguish between the long-term foundations created by the Soviet war (people, training, networks, belief that a superpower could be beaten) and the reasons al-Qaeda turned against the USA and grew stronger (the Gulf War, bin Laden's strategy, Taliban protection). Level 4 needs a sustained judgement about which was most important and why.

Mark scheme
  1. 16 marks

    Levels of response (16 marks).
    Level 4 (13-16 marks): Complex explanation of the Soviet war in Afghanistan and of other reasons for the rise of al-Qaeda (e.g. the Gulf War and US troops in Saudi Arabia, bin Laden's leadership, the Taliban's protection, wider grievances such as Israel/Palestine and sanctions on Iraq, radical Islamist ideas), leading to a sustained judgement about the most important reason, supported by a range of accurate, specific knowledge.
    Level 3 (9-12 marks): Developed explanation of the Soviet war and other reasons, supported by accurate knowledge; a judgement may be given but is not sustained.
    Level 2 (5-8 marks): Simple explanation of the Soviet war or other reasons, with some accurate knowledge.
    Level 1 (1-4 marks): Basic explanation of one or more reasons, with limited knowledge.
    0 marks: nothing worthy of credit.

    Indicative content (not a checklist; credit other valid points): For the statement - the Soviet invasion of December 1979 inspired thousands of Arab volunteers to fight a jihad; the USA, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan funded the mujahideen; bin Laden and Abdullah Azzam's Services Bureau (Peshawar, 1984) built networks of fighters, donors and camps; bin Laden gained his reputation (e.g. Jaji, 1987); al-Qaeda itself was founded in Peshawar in August 1988 as the Soviets prepared to withdraw; the Soviet withdrawal (completed February 1989) convinced the volunteers that faith could defeat a superpower; the veterans ('Arab Afghans') went on to fight elsewhere; Afghanistan was left in chaos, allowing the Taliban to take power. Other reasons - the Gulf War of 1990-91: King Fahd's invitation to US troops in August 1990 turned bin Laden against the Saudi government and the USA; US troops staying in Saudi Arabia after 1991 became al-Qaeda's main grievance (1996 declaration); bin Laden's leadership, money, use of the media and strategy of attacking the 'far enemy'; the Taliban's protection from 1996 (camps, safe base, refusal to hand him over after 1998); US support for Israel and sanctions on Iraq as grievances; radical Islamist ideas (e.g. Sayyid Qutb) and Egyptian Islamic Jihad under al-Zawahiri; weak US responses in the 1990s (e.g. withdrawal from Somalia in 1993, which bin Laden claimed showed US weakness; no military response to the USS Cole, 2000). Possible judgements - the Soviet war was the most important because it created al-Qaeda's people, skills, money, reputation and confidence; or it explains al-Qaeda's existence but not why it turned against the USA, which was caused by the Gulf War; or the Taliban's protection explains why al-Qaeda grew so strong after 1996.

  2. 4 marks

    SPaG. High performance (4 marks): spells and punctuates with consistent accuracy; uses rules of grammar with effective control of meaning overall; uses a wide range of specialist terms as appropriate.
    Intermediate performance (2-3 marks): spells and punctuates with considerable accuracy; uses rules of grammar with general control of meaning overall; uses a good range of specialist terms as appropriate.
    Threshold performance (1 mark): spells and punctuates with reasonable accuracy; uses rules of grammar with some control of meaning and any errors do not significantly hinder meaning overall; uses a limited range of specialist terms as appropriate.
    0 marks: the student writes nothing, or the response does not relate to the question, or errors severely hinder meaning.

    SPaG marks are awarded only if the answer relates to the question.

Ready to try the rest? Every answer you write is marked against the mark scheme, so you can see exactly where the marks are.

AI Tutor Hints first, answers after you try

Hi! Stuck? Ask me for a hint and I’ll help you work it out. Once you’ve checked your answer I can explain exactly where the marks are.