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

Wow

[The-Bus]

This is a bit troubling...

In 1999 al-Zawahiri undertook a top-secret program to develop chemical and biological weapons, a program he and others referred to on the computer as the "Yogurt" project. Though fearsome in its intent, the program had a proposed start-up budget of only $2,000 to $4,000. Fluent in English and French, al-Zawahiri began by studying foreign medical journals and provided summaries in Arabic for Muhammad Atef, including the one that follows:

[snip] The enemy started thinking about these weapons before WWI. Despite their extreme danger, we only became aware of them when the enemy drew our attention to them by repeatedly expressing concerns that they can be produced simply with easily available materials [snip]

That's either incredibly crazy, or scary, or both.

They never even thought of using.....

[jjh37997]

The funny thing is the notes on the computer indicate they never even thought of using chemical weapons because they thought it would be too complicated. It wasn't until the American government began making public statements about how easy it would be for certain rouge nations to make simple but deadly chemical weapons, like mustard gas, they they started working on these projects!

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

[dalutong]

I don't agree with the statement "bush or kerry doesn't matter."

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 .02

Re:osama's email

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean "All your Qaeda are belong to us" because Al Qaeda means "The Base" in their language. Isn't that fucking funny? All your Qaeda. ROFL.

Re:Hindsight is a wonderful thing...

[Guppy06]

"If Western civil society had simply condemned the act, given the Taliban 30 days to deliver the criminals"

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" ... Or by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, or by the Shia in Iraq, or...

"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?