Inside Al-Qaeda's Hard Drive

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."

Comments

Fake information?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does he know this wasn't a plant? They've could placed fake plans/email/etc knowing this person would turn it over to authorities and thus throw them off the trail. To make things look even more real, you could lightly erase the data and let the CIA recover it.

My BSometer is twitching...

[cagle_.25]

Does anyone else find it remarkable that he just happened to find a computer belonging to al-Zawahiri in a room that had Mohammed Atef's name over the door. And how did the looter know that

Each day, he said, Atef would walk into the office carrying the laptop in its black case.?

Cool story, if true; but I suspect that A. Monthly got 0wned by this journalist.

Re:My BSometer is twitching...

[solarrhino]

I get so tired of this bullshit. So you say that Bush ordered the CIA to do this or that.... yet every investigation every which way has turned up nothing - no undue influence, no attempts at undue influence.

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

[emeitner]

To: The American People
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 is still hard at work.

Re:They never even thought of using.....

[aelbric]

Just a comment to all. THe date on the e-mail, if true, about chemical weapons is April 15, 1999. Mr. Clinton was in office. The big one hit on Mr. Bush's watch. So the next time someone says George Bush did this or Bill Clinton did that and it made the situation worse, remember this.

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.....

[drinkypoo]

Bush or Kerry is irrelevant in the long-term

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.

Insights

[spellraiser]

The letters quoted in the article give interesting insights into the mindset of these terrorists. This is something quite different and much deeper than the simple-minded rhetoric that President Bush and the rest of his administration chant again and again: 'They are evil, they hate freedom, they want to destroy our way of life.'

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:Insights

[Archibald Buttle]

If I had some mod-points today you would definitely get one for 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

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

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.

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

[Zeinfeld]

We have known from day #1 that the Arab terrorists attempting to attack America hate us for specific reasons: kicking Sadaam Hussein out of Kuwait; propping up and supporting financially and militarily the country of Israel.

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

[timeOday]

There is misperception and dehumanization on all sides. For instance, assuming most Americans don't already know that the terrorists have their reasons. Assuming that if John Q Public had a clue, everthing would be different. Assuming that flagwaving carries a vacuous message, somehow ignoring the fact that perhaps we've thought through the issue and come to the conclusion those who attacked us are wrong and must be stopped.

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

[Fnkmaster]

Israel was only created after the second world war had been won and the NAZI party utterly destroyed.

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

Re:Insights

[Znork]

"They are psychotic, and cannot be helped."

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:Insights

[isaac_akira]

"There are certain people who have forfeited their right to exist."

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

[Skjellifetti]

So, do you believe that there is a point at which a certain number of accidental deaths (which are inevitable in war) are as bad as a given number of purposefully-inflicted ones?

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

[jrpascucci]

You're coming at this from entirely the wrong perspective.

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

[_Sprocket_]

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).

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.

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?).

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.

How is our killing, say, 3,000 Iraq civilians less evil than al Queda killing 3,000 American civilians?

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:Wow

[jericho4.0]

I found it darkly humorous. Since 9/11 the western media + U.S. 'homeland security' has been spuoting all kinds of usefull ideas for terrorists. For instance; attacking ferries, spreading hoof'n'mouth disease, and attacking the power grid. Put thousands of journalists to work tryng to sell papers and you've created an AQ think tank.

It's that fact that makes this era so dangerous, as it leading to laws being passed to restrict information and freedoms. :-(

Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

[ites]

Terrorists kill 4000 in order to launch a war that they can feed off. If Western civil society had simply condemned the act, given the Taliban 30 days to deliver the criminals and been very careful to not kill a single innocent civilian, Al Quaeda would have been ostracised by their own support base. By launching two wars against "terror", 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.

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. /me expects to be burnt for saying this but it must be said.

Re:Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

[maelstrom]

You mean like we did after the Khobar tower bombings, the Kenya Embassy bombings, the USS Cole Bombing, and the downing of Black Hawks in Somalia? Every time we did not effectively respond to this terrorist group made them think that America was a paper tiger and further emboldened them.

But I guess you believe in peace in our time...

Re:They never even thought of using.....

[Nasarius]

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.

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.

Religious Fundamentalism is THE problem

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm almost 3/4's of the way done reading through the article when this line struck me:

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.