Inside Al-Qaeda's Hard Drive 714
prostoalex writes "Alan Cullison covered the events in Afghanistan for Wall Street Journal in late 2001. On the day that Kabul fell Cullison was offered to buy a bunch of computers from a local al-Qaeda office. For $1100 Cullison purchased an IBM desktop and a Compaq laptop. Before giving the hard drives to CIA agents in Afghanistan, Cullison copied the contents and shares some of the electronic messages in September's Atlantic Monthly. Interesting insight on al-Qaeda's financial operations and their merger with Taliban movement. The letters include e-mail messages from Osama bin Laden himself."
Most shocking thing (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's the people that hate sex causing problems. (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the French revolution? The French don't appear to be overly sexually repressed either, however they turned lopping peoples heads off en masse into a public event.
osama's email (Score:5, Funny)
Re:osama's email (Score:5, Interesting)
"Tips for the Traveling Terrorist" (Score:2, Funny)
Re:"Tips for the Traveling Terrorist" (Score:2)
Not very useful (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not very useful (Score:2, Insightful)
You can use memos, emails etc to connect people and trace paths of communications which lead to... more people! Construct your dependancy map, then identify the hubs/people that need to be removed to cripple an orginization.
Re:Not very useful (Score:2)
Hire The Best (Score:3, Insightful)
"True. But we've had an army looking for them since 2001."
They should hire bill collectors to hunt down al Qaeda leadership. Those bastards can find you anywhere.
Re:Not very useful (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not very useful (Score:2)
Re:Not very useful (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not very useful (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, why do you think it's just being released now?
Re:Not very useful (Score:3, Insightful)
Fake information? (Score:5, Insightful)
Teh sux0rs think they can get us (Score:4, Funny)
-- Hax0r B1n L4den.
Re:Teh sux0rs think they can get us (Score:2)
419 (Score:3, Funny)
Wow (Score:5, Interesting)
That's either incredibly crazy, or scary, or both.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
In the "real flesh-and-bones world" security thorugh obsecurity is sometimes good.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
makes sense to me (Score:2, Insightful)
If that is correct that wmds are that easy to build, we should acknowledge that and adapt to the threat.
Simply put, if we did keep quiet the terrorists would eventually figure it out anyways. Security through obscurity doesnt work. open source anti terrorism.
Re:makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually Nuclear devices are relatively easy to build compared to the problem of obtaining the enriched uranium or plutonium required. So they are well within the capability of most medium capability industrial nations. Fortunately they are well out
Re:makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Iran is an advanced industrialized country with engineering as their core economic base. Every step of the oil production process requires engineering skills.
Even so Iran has been unable to build a bomb to date despite
Re:Wow (Score:5, Funny)
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
Re:Wow (Score:5, Informative)
However, it looses it's school-yard amusement when placed in it full context
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.We must never stop thinking about how best to defend our country. We must always be forward-thinking"
Basically.. Bush is saying that in order to prepare for an attack against a vulnerability we must fist identify that very vulnerability ourselves.
I do this all the time when securing my networks and computer - I ask my self "how would I attack my own system."
Re:Wow (Score:3, Interesting)
Insights (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, take this extract from a letter written by Ramzi bin al-Shibh (written after the Afghan invasion, but before the Iraqi invasion):
Because of Saddam and the Baath Party, America punished a whole population. Thus its bombs and its embargo killed millions of Iraqi Muslims. And because of Osama bin Laden, America surrounded Afghans and bombed them, causing the death of tens of thousands of Muslims ... God said to assault whoever assaults you, in a like manner ... In killing Americans who are ordinarily off limits, Muslims should not exceed four million non-combatants, or render more than ten million of them homeless. We should avoid this, to make sure the penalty [that we are inflicting] is no more than reciprocal. God knows what is best.
And then there is this, written by Bin Laden himself:
Our current battle is against the Jews. Our faith tells us we shall defeat them, God willing. However, Muslims find that the Americans stand as a protective shield and strong supporter, both financially and morally. The desert storm that blew over New York and Washington should, in our view, have blown over Tel Aviv. The American position obliged Muslims to force the Americans out of the arena first to enable them to focus on their Jewish enemy. Why are the Americans fighting a battle on behalf of the Jews? Why do they sacrifice their sons and interests for them?
Now, of course there is no denying that the mindset behind all this is evil. But it is rational in its twisted way. There are specific and clear reasons for why these people commit acts of terrorism. By absolutely refusing to face these reasons, America and its allies risks alienating every single militant Muslim in the world, little by little. Why are the real reasons behind terrorism so rarely discussed?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Insights (Score:4, Insightful)
As a matter of history Bin Laden wanted to kick Saddam out of Kewait himself. One of the reasons that Fahd did not want him to do that was that if he had been successful Bin Laden would have first set himself up as ruler, then set about taking over Saud and Iraq.
Bin Laden is utterly irrelevant in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. It is one of the issues he uses to attract and energize followers but it is like the GOP opposition to gay marriage, they really could not give a hoot about the issue but it makes a handy wedge. Bin Laden's real complaint is that the US is not likely to allow him to take over Saudi Arabia and replace the corrupt house of Saud with a looney theocracy.
Make no mistake about it. If we hadn't been supporting Israel for the last two generations the neighboring Muslims would have killed every single Jew there.
Again not true since the US did not actually start supporting Israel until the early 60s. During the Suez affair the US was actually opposing Israel and the UK. The close connection of US/Israeli interests is actually much more recent dating to the Iranian revolution and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
From a military perspective Israel could probably survive. But from an economic perspective the Israeli economy would not last very long without US support.
Make no mistake about it. If we hadn't been supporting Israel for the last two generations the neighboring Muslims would have killed every single Jew there. That's their goal. Elimination of the jews. Period. So okay, we acknowledge it. Now what? Are we going to stand by and watch the billion Muslims destroy the sixty million Jews?
Again completely failing to understand the situation. The issue for the Palestinians is that in 1948 the majority of them were forced out of what became Israel by what the serbs called ethnic cleansing. Then after the 1967 war the remaining Palestinian territories were invaded by Israel which has occupied them since and has been illegally attempting to annex them through the settler movement.
Most of the Palestinians are Muslim but a significant minority are actually Christian.
The problem with Israel is that you can't have a democratic Jewish state any more than you can have a democratic white people's state or a democratic Christian state. There is a whole rack of discriminatory legislation that makes Arab Israeli citizens second class. For example only Jews are allowed to build in Jerusalem. Palestinans simply do not get building permission.
Israel has turned itself ito an appartheid state. Unfortunately for them there is no Nelson Mandela, Arafat is more of a Mugabwe type.
Sure Isreal can hold onto the occupied territories indefinitely, sure the Jim Crow discrimination against Palestinians can be maintained. But it can't do that and be a democracy.
This is why even Sharon has seen the need to withdraw from the Gaza strip and parts of the West Bank.
Sure folk can argue that dismantling the Jim Crow discrimination against Palestinians in Israel would be 'giving in to terrorists'. But would it have been wrong to end Jim Crow in the US South if the civil rights movement had been violent?
In the end the obvious solution is to annex the West Bank and Gaza and grant citizenship to everyone who lives there. Sure it will no longer be a 'Jewish' state, but it will be better than what there is today.
Re:Insights (Score:5, Informative)
From a military perspective Israel could probably survive. But from an economic perspective the Israeli economy would not last very long without US support.
Not necessarily, most of Israel's trading is done with Europe. Most of the US support for Israel isn't comes in the form of military aid, and most of that goes directly back into the US economy anyway, to build jets, radars, etc.
Israel barely survived the 1973 Yom Kippur War sneak attack by its Arab neighbors, and the UN didn't even do anything until after Israel pushed the invading forces back and beyond into their own territory. Israel had to win every war against it, one loss would be it's utter demise. US weaponry would give Israel an edge and help prevent further attacks by it's neighbors. Statistically speaking, further Yom Kippur style Wars probably would have eventually destroyed Israel without US military support.
The issue for the Palestinians is that in 1948 the majority of them were forced out of what became Israel by what the serbs called ethnic cleansing.
Tell a lie enough times it becomes true. Most Palestinians actually voluntarily left, at the urging of their Arab neighbors, to get out of the way of the invading Arab armies, and then move back after the Jews are defeated. It is estimated only about 1/3 of the Arabs actually were forced out.
That statistic in itself, however, doesn't describe how to treat those refugees and their descendents today.
And similarly, anti-Israel folks like yourself ignore the similar number of Jews that were forced out of Arab countries, or "ethnically-cleansed" since you prefer that terminology. However, since they were welcomed by Israel, they seem to lose refugee status and suddenly become the 'bad guys' because they're now Israeli.
Then after the 1967 war the remaining Palestinian territories were invaded by Israel which has occupied them since and has been illegally attempting to annex them through the settler movement.
Bullshit, there was every reason to expect Egypt, Jordan, and Syria to invade and you know it. If Israel didn't sneak attack it would most likely cease to exist today.
Plus, you mention the occupation, and conveniently ignore that prior to this, West Bank was occupied by Jordan, and Gaza was occupied by Egypt. Why, then, weren't these occupations fought against? Why did Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, and Palestinians all focus their attacks against Israelis? Why didn't the Palestinians EVER ONCE fight their Egyptian or Jordanian occupation?
The problem with Israel is that you can't have a democratic Jewish state any more than you can have a democratic white people's state or a democratic Christian state.
True enough, and similarly you can't have it any more than a non-racist Muslim state. So if you think it's bad for Israel to be a Jewish state then you must simultaneously condemn every single Muslim state, both Arab and non-Arab.
There is a whole rack of discriminatory legislation that makes Arab Israeli citizens second class.
Hey, don't stop there, why not talk about similar legislation that makes Jews second class citizens in some other states. Jews are specifically forbidden to be citizens of Jordan. If Israel made a similar law for Muslims there'd be worldwide condemnation, but no condemnation goes for Jordan.
Let's look at the PA. I bet you're not aware that it is illegal under penalty of death for any Palestinian to sell land to any Jew. Period. Note - not Israeli, but JEW. Why doesn't any human rights champion condemn this? It seems only Israel is the violator of human rights in the region.
Israel has turned itself ito an appartheid state.
It wasn't Israel turning itself that way, it was the actions BOTH of Israel and its Arab neighbors that led to the situatio
Re:Insights (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Insights (Score:5, Insightful)
That's correct, mostly in reaction to British and American guilt over their having allowed six million Jews to be slaughtered and the world's inability to respond to the Nazi threat faster - so yes, but the point was that Jews wanted a homeland, a haven they could go to so this would never happen again, and the major world powers acknowledged that this was essentially true, and the Jewish people did have the right to a homeland. In the case of the British, there was the very specific guilt over having shut out migration to Palestine as Jews tried to flee Nazi Germany and occupied Europe.
Should German attrocities against Jews be justification for Zionist attrocities against Palestinians?
Absolutely not, and you will notice that I did nothing of the sort. I was defending the creation and right to exist of Israel as a homeland for Jewish people. That doesn't mean that everything that every person has ever done in Israel was good or right, or that the Israeli military has always responded with due and appropriate force to every threat. Nonetheless, your use of the phrase "Zionist attrocities [sic]" undermines your credibility - atrocities are committed by bad people, not by a principle that in no way undermines the Arab peoples' rights. In any case, outside of a very few specific cases (such as apparently behavior of units under then-General Sharon's command in Lebanon), not every Palestinian killed or injured is an atrocity. When your people start wars, people, including civilians, die. That's just a fact. If you don't like that, then don't start a war.
Shamir and his crew were oputright terrorists, every bit as indiscriminate in their murders as Arafat.
Yes, during the first half of this century some of the radical and violent Jewish militia organizations were absolutely just as bad as Arafat and other early Palestinian counterparts. Most of that extremism died out with the creation of Israel though. Of course, there are still certain extremist elements within the settler communities and the like, but the critical point is that mainstream Israeli society doesn't accept or embrace that sort of terrorist violence anymore, whereas mainstream Palestinian society still accepts terrorism as a legitimate "response" to occupation (which unfortunately is a myth - the current occupation and repeated incursions has been essentially a response to the Al Aqsa Intifada).
At the time the US helped to create Israel the Jim Crow laws were still in force in the US south. One of the reasons that the supporters of those laws supported the creation of Israel was to ship Jews off to Israel rather than to have them in the US.
Sure, there were absolutely people who felt that way about the Jews, the Blacks, etc. So? Liberia was founded by American Black expatriots who migrated back to Africa voluntarily. Sure, lots of American racists wanted Blacks gone, but that doesn't delegitimize their right to _voluntarily_ go back to their homeland to escape persecution, does it?
It is not a history in which any side comes off well.
You are right that there were lots of bad things done in the Palestinian protectorate on all sides (Arab, Jewish and British) pre-1945. That is essentially old news at this point - not saying we should forget about it, or pretend it didn't happen or whitewash it, but let's not justify current Palestinian terrorism based on actions of Jewish settlers from a bygone era who are either dead or in nursing homes at this point. Let's talk about the reality of the here and now.
Israel offers peace and amicable discussion of boundaries. If the Palestinians were willing to go to the negotiating table, they would even likely get joint rule of Jerusalem (I believe Barak offered something along those lines, even). As far as I know, Barak offered essentially everything the P
Wow... (Score:3, Interesting)
Is there a reasoned, sensible pro-Palestinian debate anywhere?
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Interesting)
Ideally, they'd both realize that they're made of the same flesh and bone and come to an agreement where both sides get what they want without any bloodshed or ill will. This is the real world though, so I have to go with the secular belief that there's no reason Israel has to be in the middle o
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
This isn't really right. Judaism is a religion, but the Jews are absolutely a distinct ethnic group as well. Certainly, one that has had intermarriage with host nations to a certain extent over the centuries, but there are many genetic indicators of population distinctiveness of the Ashkenazi Jews of Eastern Europe (I would assume a similar
Re:Wow... (Score:3, Insightful)
The concept of "genetic background" and "race
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Insights (Score:5, Informative)
It's really very simple: dehumanizing the enemy. If you make your enemies out to be less than human, then there will be few objections to slaughtering them.
Re:Insights (Score:5, Insightful)
You didn't think our protection of the Jews was at issue - what did you think is was then? They don't like our oil money?
The terrorists' reasons are so rarely discussed simply because we've made up our minds that they're wrong. Most of us are not open-minded about whether democracy or Islamic rule is the better system. (Yes, I used the word "better").
So the question becomes not whether to act, but how to act. And on that point, you'll notice, there has been a LOT of thought and debate. In fact it's a central issue of the presidental campaign.
Re:Insights (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem: that is bin Ladin's argument too.
From their point of view, the United States has attacked and killed innocent civilians. Which, truthfully, we have. It's just a question of whether we were justified or not. The first Iraq war seemed reasonably legit. The sanctions were a little iffy (millions of innocent people died in Iraq -- the question is to what degree that was the fault of the sanctions or Saddam). Our unblinking support for Isreal raises a lot of eyebrows (though I believe that through peaceful protests, the Palestinians could end the fighting as well -- either side could do it if they REALLY wanted to). Pretty much the whole world understood and approved of us going into Afghanistan after 9/11. But our recent invasion of Iraq didn't seem very justified (no WMD, no link to al Queda, no plans by Saddam to attack the US -- why are we there again?). How is our killing, say, 3,000 Iraq civilians less evil than al Queda killing 3,000 American civilians? They both seem pretty bad to me...
We have opposing goals, but at heart I don't believe we (the american people and the terrorists) are made of different stuff. If we were in their situation (powerless against a mighty enemy), I believe we would behave in a similar manner. Look at how we fought the British: sniping them instead of standing on a field of battle and fighting "fair" (because they had a better army than us, and we would have been slaughtered). That doesn't seem evil -- that seems like common sense.
The point of not dehumanizing them is that if we can understand them and put ourselves in their shoes, we can defeat them (and by defeat them, I mean both kill/capture the current terrorists and prevent new terrorist groups from forming). If we look as them simplistically as blood thirsty baby killers, then we can never understand how they work and they will only suprise us with their next attack. You must understand your enemy. From those emails, they unfortunely seem to understand us quite well.
The the abstract moral view I don't think one side is good and one side is evil, but as an American, I certainly want my side to win.
Re:Insights (Score:5, Insightful)
This is WW IV, fought between the forces of Islamofacisism and the forces of Freedom. Just like the WWIII (the 'Cold' War) between Communism and Freedom. Just like the WWII between Fascism and Freedom. Just like WWI between Imperialism (the Kaisar - Ceasar) and Freedom. Just like the American War of Independence, between Royalism and Freedom.
The weapons of the Islamofascists are their uneducated, no-prospects, mind-controlled youth, who they hook up to bombs and send walking into cafes. These 'footsoldiers' aren't seen as individuals with a life to live and hopes to tain: they are seen as the weapons of Islamofascism, to be manipulated and disgarded. Make no mistake that those who are in charge and in power (just like Saddam, who called for his militia to suicide attacks, cowered in fear and was found down a hole) have their hands at the switch, and will utilize them solely for their personal view of power: this is only tangentially related to the Islamic Caliphate, all the actions of their leaders (like al Sadr in Iraq) are just in it for the power, not the ideology.
Take a look at what they have in store for us as their utopian society, from the Afghanistan as run by the Taliban. Every single trivial 'free' thing we take for granted is at their disposal, and all actions are either required or prohibited: from noneducating women to locking them up and forcing them into wearing walking tents, to what you believe and how you worship (Not just enforcing shiite-versus-sunni-versus-sufi whoever happens to be in power in the area, but Iraqi Coptic Christians have been murdered even as recently as last week in Iraq and Afghani Christians of some denomination couple of weeks ago in Afghanistan), to what you hear on radio and TV, to what you can say about them and others(nothing but praise for them, and "Death to America"), right down to the millimeter of the length of your beard. (Oh, you don't have a beard, you say? You must be effeminate, so they'll just drop a wall on you.)
Compare that to what we've done with Afghanistan and Iraq. Or Japan. Or France. Or West Germany. Or S. Korea.
Did you really buy into all the moral relativism they relentlessly force-fed us in college and in the mainstream? Didn't all that theory fall apart when you started having to take responsibility for your own life? Or did their teaching take hold, deluding yourself that you can get away with the little evils and it was okay: that a little lie here and a little bad over there doesn't have a big effect on who you are? Doesn't actually damage your character? (I doubt it - most people recover, eventually - I think most people just don't have the sense to look at their own value systems again after college so that their words again meet with their actions).
I've run across many people who claim "everything is relative", pure pseudoscience, harkening back to Einstein as 'proof'. What they forget is that, even there, there is an absolute: the speed of light. In the context, you can't get around the speed of light, and in much the same way, you can't get away from good and evil.
"Everything is shades of gray" is another bit of pablum, and false too: there is no gray, there is only greater or lesser intensity of white: there is either an absence of white, or the presence of it. And history, I think, even the history over there, will record that in the war on terrorism, despite flaws and failures and mistakes, but from the _long term effect_ ("by their works shall you know them") that the United States and GB were shining with white, and the Islamofascists - not so much - probably not at all. Ash-heap of history.
They don't understand us as well as you assert: they understand the mainstream media, made up of a certain brand of the most trivial of ideology America has to offer. They forget that there are millions of us who are willing, ready, and able to defend our Freedom - and, oh yeah, able to go about arrange for others to have their
Re:Insights (Score:3, Insightful)
They forget that there are millions of us who are willing, ready, and able to defend our Freedom
Unfortunately, there are tens of millions of us who are ready, willing, and (because of their numbers) able to hand over our Freedom to anyone who promises to give us Safety from Bad Men. Or to anyone who promises us shiny toys.
Re:Insights (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN set up an "Oil for Food" program to help ensure the Iraqi people had basic food and medical supplies. During this time, Saddam managed to build nine new, and quite opulent, palaces. And it is suspected that funds intended to help Iraqi people went to weapons research.
Let me preface my next comments by stating that I found the reasons given to justify this attack suspect. Having said that...
There were plenty of reasons to believe WMD existed. The least of which was the fact that every time UN inspectors tried to certify that Iraq was complying with cease-fire agreements, there was interference. In comparison, former Soviet block countries, as well as the US and the Soviets and then Russia have been able to comply with various nuclear inspections. And even with the lack of WMD evidense, there has still been discoveries of banned weapons capability.
Also keep in mind that the Iraqi government was maintained an atagonistic stance towards the US. During the 10 year cease-fire, there were constant provocations towards patroling US (and I suspect allied) aircraft. Another interesting example is the Iraqi Intelligence attempt to assassinate the former President Bush Sr. This doesn't provide any form of proof that Iraq intended a direct attack on the US. But it does show a willingness to do harm against the US.
Ten years ago, the US tried to avoid what it has to deal with today. The intent was to allow the potentially sticky situation of removing Sadam's regime to solve itself. However, Sadam managed to survive multiple uprisings and coup attempts. Not to mention UN sanctions and inspections.
Al Queda targets civilians. The civilians killed ARE the intended targets. If the US military had intended the wholesale death of Arabic civilians, the death toll would be in the hundreds of thousands. However, the US does try to avoid civilian death. Obviously, they're not always successful. But you don't see US forces celebrating the death of civilians.
Re:Strawman (Score:3, Insightful)
Ahh - Abu Ghraib. You might note that this has become a scandal and a severe embarassment for the US Military. There are no press statements from the President of the United States or Secretary of Defense calling Abu Ghraib a great victory guided by the hand of God.
Re:Insights (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't you ask Muqtada al-Sadr, the old Bath Party hardliners, and the Al Queda wannabes who are mostly responsible for those deaths.
After all, without the US/allied presence, there would be no crossfire to be caught in.
Far more Iraqis died at the hands of Saddam's sadistic children than were accidentally killed during the course of US military operations. Without the US presence, the crossfire would be from Iraqi Secret Police firing squads.
Re:Insights (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reasons behind terrorism are rarely discussed because they are complex. Terrorists are hardly ever crazed madmen, despite what Bush might insist upon. They are people with a grievance, but they choose to stand their ground in a way that many people find to be morally wrong. Suicide bombers don't want to kill themselves, rather they feel they have no alternative.
The big problem with questioning the reasons behind terrorism is that it might show that we are doing something wrong - that we are bringing terrorism upon ourselves. Those that do genuinely and honestly question the reasons behind terrorism already know that this is the case.
The two quotes that you made clearly show that America has been doing something wrong in the eyes of the terrorists. We need to question the validity of their position, and do that in an intelligent manner without instantly rejecting their position. We also need to question the validity of the position that our governments are taking too.
This debate raises some very difficult questions which few politicians are willing to answer, since it tends to expose the immorality and inconsistency of their own position.
Re:Insights (Score:5, Insightful)
The big problem with questioning the reasons behind terrorism is that it might show that we are doing something wrong - that we are bringing terrorism upon ourselves. Those that do genuinely and honestly question the reasons behind terrorism already know that this is the case.
My understanding is that Osama bin Laden was originally fighting the Saudi royal house over their perceived decadence and their alliance with non-believers. This position intensified when the Saudis allowed US troops into the country (defiling sacred ground) in the run up to the first US / Iraq Gulf War.
Their first major attacks against the US were those bombings in E Africa, killing around 270 of whom around 10% (?) were Americans.
What were the other 90%? Primitive black savages who did not count in the larger scheme of things?
Al Qaeda are basically a load of racist religous fanatics. Sorry, I see no common ground there, no reason to compromise and no particular reason to take their views into account. Al Qaeda were pretty much isolated both before and then even more after 9/11. There are claims that Mullah Omar was offering them on a plate to the US if the price was right, and Iran - one of the few Islamic governments in the region with some claim to popular legitimacy - was offering the US their sympathy and support.
Do you really think that the 9/11 pilots and support crews felt they had no alternative? Bollox.
Re:Insights (Score:4, Insightful)
Bin Laden was also indicted by the feds for the 1993 WTC bombing. It's not clear if he personally organized it, or if an allied group acted independently.
Interestingly, 1993 was also the year of the Oslo accords, for which Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres shared the Nobel peace prize. So anyone who thinks that Al-Qaeda are going to close down if we achieve peace between Israel and Palestine should think very hard about exactly what "peace" they have in mind. Chances are it's quite different to the "peace" envisioned by Al-Qaeda.
Re:Insights (Score:3, Interesting)
The objective of terrorists is to cause terror, to obtain press, to communicate your views, and to bring about some kind of political change.
OBL screaming on a bullhorn in Afganistan doesn't make much of an impact on the world. OBL recruiting crews who fl
Re:Insights (Score:3, Insightful)
So is the republican party...
Sorry, I see no common ground there
Maybe not, but there sure is a common mindset.
no reason to compromise and no particular reason to take their views into account.
So, what you propose then? Death to the indfidels?
If you do not take their views into account, what other course of action do you have besides total anihilation?
Re:Insights (Score:3, Insightful)
Idiot.
Michael Moore was behind *which* terrorist attacks?
I can think of another rich kid who made decisions which led to a large number of deaths, but accusing Moore of that is just plain stupid.
Re:Insights (Score:4, Insightful)
If that were true, would they need the incentive of 70 virgins?
Re:Insights (Score:4, Insightful)
One of my freinds almost got kicked out of a poli-sci course, because she wrote a paper after 9/11 that said that the terrorists had some legitimate greivances, and weren't just raving mad-men who blew up some buildings because the don't like american boobies. I've gotten screamed at because I think that we are a partial cause, and can understand the terrorist POV. We're too big and powerful to fight a conventional war with, their too small and disjointed to organize one. We should realize that our globalistic aims, cultural imperialism, and support for nasty governments should stop, or terrorism will always be an increasing issue.
Now, mind, I'm not supporting them, killing civilians is never justified, or acceptable, no matter what your cause is. Murdering innocents is always a reprehensible act, and there is no rational justification for that.
Re:Insights (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, my first thoughts on 9/11 was the US would learn a lesson and adopt a sane policy with Israel, and the rest of the world.
This analogy is not exact, but... when a child throws a tantrum, you don't give him what he wants, as it only encourages more tantrums.
So, you are proposing that the target of the tantrum give the tantrum thrower what he wants.
Re:Insights (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed.
"Radical Islam as a movement must be destroyed and that means destroying the carriers of the disease."
And someone appears to have forgotten that they reproduce by the death of civilians, so the coalition is doing a damn good job at spreading the disease rather than containing and eliminating it.
Radical Islam sure has seen a lovely upsurge in Iraq. The coalitions current fight against the very same radical islamists that Saddam was oppressing is ironic.
Radical religion will die out on its own when it runs out of minds susceptible to it. We hardly defeated the radical religion in the western world by military means. It was done through the long process of enlightening people, raising standards of living and creating social networks that were not dependent on religion.
Even tho many parts of the islamic world is not quite as far along, most of it would resist the radicals... unless the west gives the radicals the power of fear and injustice they need to thrive. If they can show Islam under indescriminate attack, they can gain recruits. And as long as they can gain recruits, new incurable psychotics, it will be impossible to get rid of them and bury that chapter of human history.
We can only win against the fundamentalists by refusing to help them. We can only win by innoculating the minds of people against their type of insanity.
We will win when people like Osama, Omar and al-Sadr walk the streets of Mecca with 'The End is Nigh' signs, like any other religious crazy.
A fundamentalist without the ability to recruit followers is nothing more than someone who needs his medication adjusted when he starts talking about killing people in the name of some god of his.
Re:Flawed reasoning or lack of world experience? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is tragic that a parent would feel it necessary to raise their child to kill itself.
A problem with the scenario that you put forward of the child being captured and discovering that Jews can be nice is that this is a very difficult picture to see when your home has been destroyed by Israeli helicopter gun-ships.
It is very easy to brand people as terrorists, and forget that they might consider themselves freedom fighters. They do not have sophisticated weapons, whereas their enemies do. What then are their options?
Would they continue to with suicide bombing if they had their own helicopter gun-ships and missiles?
I doubt that they would. However war is not a very civilised activity. If "the enemy" hits civilian targets then it's very tempting to go after their civilian targets too.
I agree with you - it is a very nasty world we live in, and there have been wars continuing in this vane for tens of thousands of years, not just the last 2000. I am not so naiive as to think that there are easy solutions, and I also doubt that this will be resolved within our lifetime.
Part of the problem here is that one of the countries that supported the rise of fundamentalist Islam was the USA. The CIA was instrumental in putting the Taliban in charge in Afghanistan. They funded the organisations that went on to become Al Quaeda, since they were fighting against Russian/communist oppression. It is also well documented that the USA supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Unfortunately what goes around comes around.
Re:Wow (Score:5, Insightful)
It's that fact that makes this era so dangerous, as it leading to laws being passed to restrict information and freedoms. :-(
Re:That's dumb. (Score:2)
It's false. What about it?
They never even thought of using..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:They never even thought of using..... (Score:5, Insightful)
The terrorists don't give a damn about who's in office. They have been planning all this for many years. Bush or Kerry is irrelevant in the long-term as long as whomever is elected find a permanent solution to this one way or another.
Re:They never even thought of using..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Bush is certainly willing to deprive Americanns of their liberties, though. It's irrelevant who is in office in terms of whether or not an attack is launched - but certainly not in terms of its results on our society.
Re:They never even thought of using..... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right, but you neglect to mention the reason: Supreme Court appointments. Whoever is President in the next four years will very likely get to nominate two or three new SC justices. The justices that are likely to be retire or die (O'Connor, Stevens, ...) are also some of the more liberal justices. The SC is pretty well balanced at the moment. Give Bush the opportunity, and he will appoint conservative, anti-abortion justices who will affect the nation for decades to come. Just something to keep in mind if you support Bush but you're not a fundamentalist Christian.
Re:They never even thought of using..... (Score:2)
Re:They never even thought of using..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They never even thought of using..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They never even thought of using..... (Score:5, Interesting)
I have just spent about 6 months on and off over the past two years in the greater middle east. I have also traveled to a few countries elsewhere (China, some Europe, etc.) The feeling I get is that there is a real population of people who are very angry at america for what it is doing presently but still distinguishes between what the government is doing and what the american people feel. I have heard many tell me, "I don't hate you. you're just a person. I hate your government. I hate bush. I hate what he is doing." Then they'll elaborate.
I have a feeling that the reelection of Bush would thin the line between our government and our people. It would demonstrate that we approve of what he is doing and then these people, let's call them the world's swing voters, will swing the wrong way. At the very least it would allow the persuaders to say, "see! the american people are the same as Bush!"
I think that a vote for Kerry, however, would demonstrate that the American people are in fact different than the government and that the people keep it in check. Of course there will be examples a-plenty as to why we are "evil," but I really think that a lot of the people I have met who have made comments like this are waiting to see if indeed we are one in the same. And they think this election will be the test.
Just my
TO: gwbush@whitehouse.gov (Score:5, Funny)
Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2004 12:53 PM
Subject: TRANSFER
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am fine today and how are you? I hope this letter will find you in the best of health. I am Osama Bin Laden, the Chairman of the "Down with the West Committee", of "Al Qaeda (AQ)", a subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian sanctioned Groups (SASG).
Al Qaeda (AQ) was set up by the late Head of State, General Sani Abacha who died on 18th June 1998, to manage the excess revenue accruing from the sales of Opium and its allied products as a domestic increase in the piate products to develop the communities in the Afghani poppy producing areas. The estimated annual revenue for 1999 was $45 Billion US Dollars Ref. FMF A26 Unit 3B Paragraph "D" of the Auditor General of the Muslim Republic of Afghanistan Report of Nov. 1999 on estimated revenue.
I am the Chairman of the Contract Award Committee, and my committee is solely responsible for awaiting and paying of contracts on behalf of the Talibani Government. My Committee Awarded Contracts to foreign contractors for Irrigation and Ecological Matters in the poppy producing areas of Afghanistan. We overshot the contract sum by US$25,000,000.00. We have paid the contractors and withholding the balance of US$25,000, 000.00. But, because of the existence of some of the domestic laws forbidding civil servants in Afghanistan from opening, operating and maintaining foreign accounts, we do not have the expertise to transfer this balance of fund to a foreign account.
However, this balance of US$25,000, 000.00 has been secured in form of Credit/Payment to a foreign contractor, hence we wish to transfer into your bank account as the beneficiary of the fund. We have also arrived at a conclusion that you will be given 20% of the total sum transferred as our foreign partner, while 5% will be reserved for incidental expenses that both parties will incur in the course of actualizing this transaction, and the balance of 75% will be kept for the committee members.
If you know that you will be capable of helping us actualize this transaction, you should send to me immediately the details of your bank particulars or open a new bank account where we can transfer the money US$25,000, 000.00, which you will be holding in trust for us until we come to your country for our share. Your nature of business does not matter in this transaction. The required details includes your company's name, address, your private personal telephone/fax numbers, your full name and address, including your complete bank details where the transferred fund will be routed by the Apex Bank.
Note that this transaction is expected to be actualized within 21 working days from the day the required details are forwarded to the Federal Ministry of Finance who will approve the needed foreign exchange control allocation for the release of this money to your account. Please, treat this as top secret. You should contact me urgently.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Yours faithfully,
Osama Bin Laden.
My BSometer is twitching... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My BSometer is twitching... (Score:2)
Re:My BSometer is twitching... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not convinced? Fine, how about his - the director of the CIA was George Tenet, a Clinton appointee. He was definitely not a GWB loyalist or anything like that. So do you really see Bush walking up to this guy and pressuring him to do *anything* that could come back to haunt him?
Okay, fine - you'll believe anything of Bush. But to make that work, you also have to believe it of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and Powell. Not one of them has ever been accused of being stupid, and sticking your neck out like that would be stupid indeed. This same point applies to those idiots who say that Bush "lied" about WMDs in Iraq. Even assuming that everyone listed above is pure evil, do you really believe any of them is stupid enought to have lied without a plan to make the lie come true?
The facts don't support your thesis, and neither does reason. So get off it!
To: The American People (Score:4, Insightful)
From: Osama bin Laden
Folder: Publications
Date: October 3, 2001
So what exatly is the email address for "The American People?" I mean, if the found email had that as the address book name, what was the address listed?
Seriously, I think this could very well be a well executed plant. Be assured that the Office of Special Plans [wikipedia.org] is still hard at work.
Found on hard drive. (Score:3, Funny)
This may come as a surprise to you, since we have never done business before. I am the son of a wealthy Saudi family who due to an invading army, need help accessing OVER 40 BILLION DOLLARS US.
For your kind assistance in helping me recover my families money, I am wiling to off4er you %10 of the total funds. Doens' t that sound nice? PleaSe respond as soon as possable with a phone number and a email address that we can correspond with to get you your money. To begin this process, I will only require a sum of $4000 to release my funds from the Government of Afganistan.
Best wishes!
Osama bin Laden Mobutu
Not Encrypted? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not Encrypted? (Score:2)
Just read this bit.... (Score:3, Interesting)
- - - - - - -
To: Real name unknown
From: Unknown
Folder: Hamza
Date: August 23, 2001
Special file for our brother Abu Bakr al-Albani ["the Albanian"] on the nature of his mission.
First, the mission: Gather information on:
1. Information on American soldiers who frequent nightclubs in the America-Canada border areas
2. The Israeli embassy, consulate, and cultural center in Canada
3. If it is possible to enter America and gather information on American soldier checkpoints, or on the American army in the border areas inside America
4. Information on the possibility of obtaining explosive devices inside Canada
I have given to our brother $1,500 for travel expenses in Canada and America, and also the cost of the ticket for the trip back to us after four months, God willing.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think every country faced with local terrorists has learnt through bitter experience that force does not solve this kind of problem. Dialogue and negotiation are always, finally, the only way to end the cycle of violence.
This lesson has been learnt by the British in Northern Ireland, by the Spanish in the Basque Country, by the French in Sardinia, the Sri Lankans... it does not matter how "evil" the men with guns are. Nothing short of genocide - and even that is not certain - will stop more embittered and manipulated youths growing up to fill the gaps left by arrest, detention, assassination.
Re:Hindsight is a wonderful thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
But I guess you believe in peace in our time...
Re:Hindsight is a wonderful thing... (Score:4, Informative)
In case you hadn't noticed, we did ask the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden and other al-Queda persons residing within Afghanistan.
They sort of refused.
Then we sort of got medieval on their asses.
Not like we went from 0 to medieval in 60 seconds. We gave then several weeks to do the right thing. They chose to not do the right thing. Big mistake on their part.
Re:Hindsight is a wonderful thing... (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, that's pretty much what the US did. It asked the Taliban to extradite Bin Laden or else. The Taliban said no, and the US answered "OK, then else." War followed.
Get a map. Sardinia is Italian.
Re:Hindsight is a wonderful thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Was a week not long enough? What about the requests for extradition for acts before September 2001, such as the bombing of the African embassies?
"And been very careful to not kill a single innocent civilian, Al Quaeda would have been ostracised by their own support base."
Why? Because we bent over backwards to suit their double standard? It is not enough to try our best to prevent those innocent deaths, even when compared to the al Qaeda tactics that deliberately target civillians? And this is before we get into the nasty details over disagreements over just who was a civillian and who was not (such as "devout worshippers" at a holy cite that were operating a piece of equipment that "just happened" to look and operate like an anti-aircraft battery...)
And what reason is there to believe that, even if we did meet that double standard, al Qaeda would loose support?
"Western civil society has guaranteed Al Quaeda a place in history and guaranteed a generation or two of on-going fighting that will cause the deaths of many, many more people."
And what if Western inaction would have caused the deaths of many more? Which was worse for Afghanistan, outside military intervention in 2001, or a decade under the Taliban? Is it better that those people die by the hands of their countrymen, even if more people die and in far uglier ways?
"I think every country faced with local terrorists has learnt through bitter experience that force does not solve this kind of problem. Dialogue and negotiation are always, finally, the only way to end the cycle of violence."
So, instead of giving Timothy McVeigh a lethal injection we should simply have had a talk with him and then let him go about his business?
"This lesson has been learnt by the British in Northern Ireland, by the Spanish in the Basque Country, by the French in Sardinia, the Sri Lankans"
"Nothing short of genocide - and even that is not certain - will stop more embittered and manipulated youths growing up to fill the gaps left by arrest, detention, assassination."
Even if those doing the manipulations are wrong? Is the majority always right?
I smell a rat (Score:2, Interesting)
They have special rooms in Cuba for people who disseminate this kind of material.
Which means that the stuff published was vetted (and probably carefully rewritten) by the CIA. To what end, I don't know. But rest assured, there is nothing in the article that you (or the bad guys) are not meant to see.
Religious Fundamentalism is THE problem (Score:5, Insightful)
The UN imposes all sorts of penalties on all those who contradict its religion. It issues documents and statements that openly contradict Islamic belief, such as the International Declaration for Human Rights, considering all religions are equal, and considering that the destruction of the statues constitutes a crime ...
It's interesting that I had a lively debate during lunch a few days back with a colleague about religions and what they mean in the modern world. Mind you, a healthy unbiased debate, not an argument.
I happened to mention that I think that all religions are equal, atleast at a higher level (as in if you ignore the minor details like forms of worship, etc) and that I think that they were created with a common goal of imposing "morality" and the "good" way of life back when law and order were difficult to maintain. The fear of God was a common deterrant to "bad" or "immoral" behavior.
I agree that many people find this view in contrast to the traditional beliefs of religions being God's word, but I just put forth the point since this was a debate, and I wanted to hear his opinion on it.
What I found troubling was that his *main* disagreement with what I said was the former part - the part about "all religions being equal" in the long run or from a high level. He (being a fundamentalist Christian) was totally revolted by the idea that I would say that the belief that "God is One" is the same as believing in the "Trinity". I tried explaining that those are exactly the sort of differences that people look at (in addition to form of worship etc) to argue against the inferiority of other religions, when it doesn't really matter, since all of them teach us to pray and have faith, and behave in a "good" way.
Well, I didn't get through, and the next day, he presented me a book (which I found quite outrageous) published by a campus Church group explaining why "religions are different" and how "they'll all find salvation at the feet of Christ". How can you hope to write a so called unbiased book, if your conclusion is that they'll be "Saved" only if they follow Christianity?.
Anyway, the point which I had wanted to make is that there are a *surprisingly* large number of people who refuse to believe that the best service to their religion that they can probably do is to increase tolerance towards other religions rather than denounce them and try to proselytize the masses under the guise of "saving them". I've personally seen Christian, as well as Muslim missionaries and other entities offer food/clothing and money to poorer people in Africa etc so as to convert them to their religions, *all* the while preaching that they won't be saved otherwise.
So ANY religious fundamentalism is bad, not JUST Islamic fundamentalism or Christian fundamentalism, or fundamentalism under the guise of any other religion. Hey, if you want to believe strongly in something, you're free to do so, but don't try to change my thinking or impose it upon me.
Sorry for the rant.
Re:Religious Fundamentalism is THE problem (Score:3, Insightful)
IANAT, I am not a Theologist, just had a bit of religion in high-school. I don't believe in a God FWIW.
1. Primitive religions are vastly different from Christianity. This hardly needs to be justified.
2. Judaism is a "law-religion" at it's base, something Jesus expressly underscored that Christianity is not. All ethical guidelines from the Old testament were i
On The State of War (Score:5, Funny)
TO : Osama 'Yo Mama' bin Laden
Subject: Training
Oh! Supreme one! We are in the midst of training our latest round of recruits to service in the holy Jihad against the Infidels! We are proud to announce that shortly we shall have the capacity to completely undermine the ability of the Infidel Armies to wage war effectively:
1) It has come to our attention that many of the Infidels train for war electronically, using common-off-the-shelf games that we can obtain in various Indonesian markets for less than $1 per computer. These games are extremely popular within the Infidel youth community. "Operation Wall-Hack" is my proposal to train our operatives to use techniques frowned up by their youth community, although they are the same to create these tools, to produce a formidable, unbeatable force of Counter Strike experts. God willing, we will demoralize the youth of the Infidels, and they shall throw themselves in front of their parent's Four Wheeled Drive vehicles. Praise Allah!
2) Our operatives have discovered that Email is the #1 method of communication within the Infidel community. Our operatives have discovered on a secret, underground website called "Slashdot" that "Spam" is a growing problem that cripples the Infidel's ability to successfully utilize this medium. Through divine inspiration from Allah, I have come up with "Operation SPAM", where we will open up full time spam mailing facilities in the countries that still welcome us and we will flood the mail servers of the world with useless junk! Infidel Economies will grind to a standstill! Office workers will gnash their teeth, System Administrators will pull their hair from the roots and staple their eyes shut from the flood of junk email! I propose that we invest $499 for a server from the Infidel company Dell to begin investigating this immediately.
3. The Infidels have concocted a curious form of support for their technology. They utilize large numbers of people to man telephone stations that attempt to answer technical questions that customers of these technology companies may have in the repair, maintainence, and usage of their machines. I propose "Operation OutSource" to your holiness, to aid in our fight against the Infidels! We shall open up telephone support centers in our friendly nations and underbid the Indians to gain the business of giant Infidel corporations and provide substandard support to the Infidel industry! The Infidel productivity levels will grind to nothing! And they will PAY us for the privilege! If you are concerned that our lack of technology infrastructure and education will prevent us from providing adequate levels of support for these companies, do not fear. The current support providers don't know anything about computers, either! The hapless users will throw themselves off of their Infidel skyscrapers in madness, Allah Willing! Praise Allah!
4) We have learned a new codespeak for our communications. It is called "L33t Sp34k" and is considered to be one of the strongest encryption codes ever produced when combined with GNUPG (I am sorry to hear of your confusion regarding this product, did you read the man pages?). I highly recommend that we teach this method to all of our agents in the field.
As you can see, your Supremacy, we have the potential to completely revolutionize the way "The War" is fought. Allah willing, we shall overcome the Infidels and regain control of Palestine! Praise Allah!
-Ali Baba
Yup, /.ers in Afghanistan.. (Score:5, Funny)
The dude has his priorities straight, that's for sure.
Did anybody else see this and think... (Score:3, Funny)
I had this image of naked Afghanis in veils...
Deleted Files, From a copied drive? (Score:3, Interesting)
INFORMATION REVEALED!!! (Score:5, Funny)
MY NAME IS OSAMA bin LADIn. MY FATHER WAS AN OIL PRINCE in the Saudi Empire and managed to stash $30 Million US in a securities bank. I am writing to you because I need a foreign terrorist to helP me GET THE Money out of the country......
Re:Most important question (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Most important question (Score:2)
Relatively easy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Drive recovery... (Score:5, Informative)
I'll give the short version:
There is only one way to 100% remove all information from a hard drive. Immolate it in fires exceeding 750 degrees Celcius for more than 30 minutes. This causes the magnetic iron in the platters to lose their magnetic properties and "forget" what was written on them.
Otherwise there is a way to recover the information after destruction by any other method that is easily within reach of authorities.
Although previously it was considered "safe" to overwrite the drive with 10, 20, or 30 passes of pseudo-random numbers, the fact is that the ability to recover data from more and more deeply overwritten data improves constantly and the only limiting factor is money. Even this does not truly erase all information, either, as after so many rewrites a sector will become "bad" and the drive will automatically remap that sector to a fresh one and discontinue writing over the one flagged bad. The problem is bad sector is completely readable and may have been written over by significantly fewer passes or even none at all if it failed before the drive wipe. The equipment needed to do this costs in the thousands and is at the disposal of any local police station in the developed world.
Obviously shattering a drive would make it difficult to recover from, they are more than capable of putting it back together or analyzing individual fragments. Very few would want to recover a drive that was shredded, but there are people that have perfected the technique and are able to do it.
Finally, some seem to think that you can degauss a hard drive but this is simply not practical. The magnetic fields required to do this would require medical or military grade equipement and a very large amount of power. Information destroyed in this way is also recoverable regardless, simply at an increasing cost for the power of the magnetic field used.
To answer your original question, authorities will go as far as they need to go within the limits of their funding. The CIA/NSA certainly posesses the ability to look back as far as they want to go back short of the drive being demagnetized by flames. The question is whether the taxpayer thinks the need is important enough to warrant that expense.
Would they use an electron microscope to see investigate Joe Sixpack's computer when he's under investigation for tax fraud on $100,000? Maybe not, but they will probably take a stab at it. Would they use it to unearth files from a serial killer's computer? Possibly. The equipment is a fixed cost and the experts are paid on salary anyway. Just send it to the FBI crime lab and have at it. Would they use it to investigate the personal computer of Osama bin Laden? Oh you better bet they would. They'll go all the way back to the original hard drive manufacturing quality assurance test writes. They spent a couple hundred billion so far, a few hundred million on this computer would probably be money well spent.
Re:Drive recovery... (Score:2)
Re:Just remember... (Score:2, Funny)
Sweet, I can't wait to vote for Kerry! I can't think of two things that will help this country more. This is not sarcasm, I'm completely serious. The military gets way too much of our money (hundreds of billions) imagine if just a fraction of that went to the schools. Also consider how nice it would be to have universal health care just by raising the taxes.
Re:Windows or Linux???? (Score:4, Funny)
Of course, Linux:
Or perhaps a derivative, named Quaedux.
Now imagine Darl going after Al Quaeda for copyright infrigements in Quaedux...!
Re:Interesting similarities! (Score:4, Interesting)
By invading Iraq, Bush has done more to forward Osama bin Ladin's propaganda than any other action he could have taken. Osama bin Ladin said, that the US will invade your country, the US will take your oil, the US is ruled by Jews and is acting to protect Israel, the US talk about "freedom" but they will crush you under their boots, they will rape your women and torture your men, they will desecrate your holy shrines. So Bush goes and invades one of the most holy Islamic nations which is oil rich, guards the oil ministry while the rest of Baghdad descends into chaos, the neo-cons are well known to be behind the invasion and the original neo-cons were Jews (not the ones now - but they still have very strong ties with Israel's Likud party and Sharon), then there was the torture scandal with reports of rape and torture by American forces, they attack the shrine of Iman Ali and the one of the Sayyids (al Sadr) ie. descendants of The Prophet, which is something only Saddam Hussein and most importantly the caliph Yazid (the worse villain in Shi'ite history) did. Even better, before Iraq only Sunnis formed the Islamic terrorist groups directly attacking the US. Most of the Shi'ite population are as wary of bin Ladin as the US as he considers them heretics. Now by doing a Yazid and attacking the shrine of Iman Ali, all the Shi'ites in the world hate the US as well. For example recently, an elder in one of the Shi'ite strongholds in India warned Americans not to enter the area as he could not guarantee their safety. In Iraq we are seeing Sunni hardliners and Shi'ite hardliners unite for the first time since the war of independence against the British.
Honestly could Bush do anything more to *help* bin Ladin win his propaganda war? Oh, and also because all man-power has been diverted to Iraq, the hunt for bin Ladin has effectively been outsourced to Pakistan (divided loyalties, military dictatorship and all) and the N. Korean threat is being ignored as troops (and White House attention) is rushed from Korea to Iraq.
Personally I think history will see Bush's invasion of Iraq in the same way we currently see the actions taken immediately preceding WWI where a heinous (but not disastrous event like an invasion) led a huge superpower to try to crush a country related to but not directly involved in the event for pre-existing reasons not related to the heinous event in question which led to other countries intervening in a complex system of alliances and ethnic loyalties that cascaded out of control into a war to end all wars. Except this time, a war to end all wars is what bin Ladin actually wants.
Re:Interesting similarities! (Score:3, Insightful)
Since most thought they Iraq did not have substantial stockpiles of WMD before the war (despite the claims of Bush et al) and the US attacked with a pretty good understanding that they wouldn't be requiring their chemical suits.
Alternatively, an attack against N-Korea is off the table because of their WMD programs and delivery systems, plus significant traditional weaponry which the US would have d
Re:The sad truth (Score:3, Insightful)
I definitely agree that that should happen and that it will resolve a large part of the terrorist problem there, but settling that problem will not stop people like Osama. He has religious motives, and has no problemm attacking other muslims who don't foll