Slashdot Mirror


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."

102 of 714 comments (clear)

  1. Most shocking thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Was the large collection of J-Lo pictures. Osama loves da booty.

  2. osama's email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "All your base are belong to us"

    1. Re:osama's email by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  3. "Tips for the Traveling Terrorist" by laptop006 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Forget the underware thing, just make sure you erase the bloody hard drive before selling your laptop off...

    --
    /* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
    1. Re:"Tips for the Traveling Terrorist" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm reporting you to the FBI for aiding and abetting and giving comfort and technical support to terrorists.

  4. Not very useful by lachlan76 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anything that would have been useful to CIA before wouldn't be know that all this has been made public - any financial information would be useless, since with this online, they would have taken the money out. Intel is really only useful if not everyone knows it.

    1. Re:Not very useful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WRONG!

      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.

    2. Re:Not very useful by Gumpmaster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The intel wouldn't be useful in a tactical manner, but operational and strategic use extends far beyond actionable intelligence. Communications intelligence (comint) is vital in deciphering future communications. I'm surprised that the spooks allowed Mr. Cullison to publish this as it allows al-Qaeda to more effectively tailor their communications.

      --
      Pod Six was jerks- Capt. Murphy
    3. Re:Not very useful by Gumpmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The loss of a large ammount of the al-Qaeda leadership would spur a change in communications patterns, but the geographically diverse nature of the network necessitates consistent code words and communications patterns so that the network isn't broken. Also, the isolated nature of action cells requires that communications patterns not change drastically.

      --
      Pod Six was jerks- Capt. Murphy
    4. Re:Not very useful by Eil · · Score: 2, Interesting


      Well, why do you think it's just being released now?

    5. Re:Not very useful by cynic10508 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, the worst part is anything he passed on is legally inadmissible. I'm guessing he did the copying without using a write-blocker. That effectively tampers with the evidence. Granted, that won't stop the CIA from acting on it.

    6. Re:Not very useful by lordsid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      the article said the reporter attained these computers shortly after 9/11.

      meaning they waited a while to release the info.

      rtfa.

      --
      IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
    7. Re:Not very useful by Sinterklaas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anything that would have been useful to CIA before wouldn't be now that all this has been made public - any financial information would be useless, since with this online, they would have taken the money out. Intel is really only useful if not everyone knows it.

      It can be pretty useful still for many things. First of all, you can discover the methodology of Al Qaeda. That is not something you can change overnight, even if you know that information about you is discovered (especially since Al Qaeda is very decentralized). It also tells you what kind of loopholes the group likes to use, which is useful because someone will usually only use the type of methods that they are familiar with. This can help you to predict replacement methods. Secondly, it allows you to track the past behaviour of the group. This allows you to build up evidence against already arrested Al Qaeda members or to detect sleeper cells, scouted targets and activity areas in general.

      And as for freezing accounts, if the group has any common sense, transferred funds won't be left in the accounts for long anyway. A smart terrorist would take it out as cash and either pocket it or put most of it in another account (not the full amount and leaving some time between withdrawal and deposit). Voila, no link between the accounts.

      Porter Goss
      ...
      Ok, I'm not Goss, I'm George Tenet.

  5. Fake information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Fake information? by Mixel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm sure they know if the information was real or fake

      Because of their recent record, I am not so sure. Sadly, it appears that on many issues they're not significantly more knowledgeable than anybody else.

  6. Teh sux0rs think they can get us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    LMAO!!!11 I iz da best at t3rr0r !!11
    -- Hax0r B1n L4den.

  7. 419 by vurg · · Score: 3, Funny

    Reading some of the letters, I kinda feel that the tone and language used seems very similar to those nigerian scam e-mails.

  8. Wow by The-Bus · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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.
    --

    Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    1. Re:Wow by LGagnon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dubya put it best:
      "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

    2. Re:Wow by jericho4.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      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. :-(

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    3. Re:Wow by zulux · · Score: 5, Informative

      The quote is rather amusing.
      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."

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    4. Re:Wow by LGagnon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whether or not he had the right intentions, he still phrased it poorly. He said that the terrorists never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people. He did not, however, say that they think of ways that the country could be harmed, which is what our government is supposed to think about. Instead, he blocked both of us together as having ill intent. Of course, he didn't mean for it to come off that way, but the way he said it was still wrong. Something along the lines of "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and we never stop thinking of ways to stop thier ideas before the can be implemented." would have been more appropriate.

    5. Re:Wow by dave420 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, basically Bush is saying that, but as a President, he should be saying it more accurately. He did specifically state that the administration is actively trying to figure out how to harm the people, not protect them. Great.

  9. They never even thought of using..... by jjh37997 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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!

    1. Re:They never even thought of using..... by aelbric · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
    2. Re:They never even thought of using..... by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:They never even thought of using..... by Nasarius · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    4. Re:They never even thought of using..... by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not forgotten, only written off as the status quo. The reps and dems both push the war on drugs because to do otherwise is political suicide, and one of the (many) reasons the libertarian party does not have the proverbial snowball's chance in hell at taking the presidency. The poverty industry depends on the war on drugs. Without the WoD the federal government would not have a chance to siphon huge piles of money from the approximately $20 billion dollars spent per year on this travesty - Another $20 billion plus is spent by state and local governments on the same thing. Putting people in prison for drug offenses keeps many people employed in the judicial and "corrections" systems. Any president who doesn't support it will be labeled as a corrupter of the nation and will never get anything accomplished.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    5. Re:They never even thought of using..... by SethJohnson · · Score: 2, Insightful


      You are entirely correct regarding the terrorists' impetus for launching the sept 11 attacks. Unfortunately, the unilateral attack on Iraq has worked to give terrorists an even bigger rallying call against the US. Had we been part of a real UN effort, the Islamicists would be angry at the 'west'. In the current environment, they're able to point their hatred at the United States.

      This war against terrorism is frighteningly similar to the war on drugs. It's misguided and poorly implemented and doomed to be ineffective. There's all this faux tightening of security. In reality, our borders are wide open. Sure, there might be an increase in security around petroleum plants, but we'll never be able to prevent a plan like Jose Padilla's. That's the guy who was going to rent three or four apartments in a building, turn on the gas in each, then remotely ignite them. His plan was publicized and any terrorist will be able to implement it for as long as residential apartment buildings use gas.
    6. Re:They never even thought of using..... by dalutong · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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

      --

      What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
  10. makes sense to me by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So we drew their attention to the fact that bio and chem weapons can be produced simply with easily available materials.

    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.

    1. Re:makes sense to me by Zeinfeld · · 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.

      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 outside the capabilities of terrorist groups.

      As for the biological and chemical weapons, they plain do not work. The Tokyo subway sarin gas attack showed their limitations. Even in the most densely occupied public spaces you could imagine the attack killed far fewer people than the Oaklahoma bombing.

      Saddam used chemical weapons to some effect against civilians and both sides in the Iran/Iraq war used chemical weapons. But they were being used as a substitute for conventional munitions. It is rather easier to make chlorine in a hurry than Semtex or for that matter nitro-glycerine. Saddam used the chemical weapons against civilians because he wanted the buildings left intact.

      Also take a look at the emails where Al Zawahiri is asking idiotic questions about less than $23,000 that was keeping the office going for several months. The staff are all on half pay, puchase of a fax machine requires approval from the organization head. This is not an organization that has hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free cash as many journalists have been reporting. The 9/11 plot was done on a shoestring.

      The other issue that seems to keep the Al Qaeda loonies from using chemical weapons is that they are clearly a dishonorable weapon. One of the factors that hit Al Qaeda hard is the fact that their attack on the US was against civilians. Then when faced with US troops Al Qaeda and the Taleban both ran rather than stand and fight.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    2. Re:makes sense to me by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Insightful
      With the current spreading around of depleted uranium in unstable regions, and the possibility of using breeding techniques to turn DU into plutonium, I dont feel as confident these days that the difficulty of creating large quantities of fission grade material is beyond a dedicated group

      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 a huge influx of resources since the idiotic axis of evil speech. Translated into Farsi the speech said "go build a nuke quickly before we invade'.

      Bush is absolute proof of he fact that leadership matters. He is an utter ignoramous and utterly incompetent. His lack of skills necessary for office are only matched by his inflated sense of self importance. He has no character, he is not a leader. He is dishonest, untruthful and a bully. When his leadership was put to the test his choice was to read my pet goat.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
  11. TO: gwbush@whitehouse.gov by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    From: Osama Bin Laden
    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.

  12. My BSometer is twitching... by cagle_.25 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.
    --
    Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
    1. Re:My BSometer is twitching... by solarrhino · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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!

      --
      "Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
  13. To: The American People by emeitner · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Guru Meditation #6d416769.21610a21
    1. Re:To: The American People by Hockney+Twang · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just as a posit, do you recall the story sometime back about terrorists storing emails in web mail folders(like on hotmail) without sending the email at all? And then the remote contact logs into the same account, views the stored email, and edits it as his response. No email is sent, so no valid recipient needs to be specified, and it's never intercepted during transit. If this is a common practice then it wouldn't be shocking to learn that most of AQ's emails fail to have a valid sender/recipient.

  14. Relatively easy by panurge · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is always tracking irregularity to ensure that the traces of previous write cycles aren't completely lost. Reading a hard drive while subtracting the top level bit pattern from the signal will allow the previous signal to be retrieved, and this process can go several levels deep. An electron microscope is unnecessary and won't work (you are thinking of the visible bits on CDs, I guess.) This is why, if you really want to erase a hard drive, the best approach is to take the disks out and heat them to destruction or whack them with a mallet. You can overwrite many times with an alternating bit pattern, of course, but physical destruction is the fastest and surest way.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  15. Found on hard drive. by weeboo0104 · · Score: 3, Funny

    hELLO,
    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

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  16. Not Encrypted? by Milton+Waddams · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would have thought that they, being so organised and all, would have used really strong encryption on their computers. Also, would they not see any conflict of interests in using US company computers and US software?

  17. Just read this bit.... by earthforce_1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Some of this gives me the creeps knowing that I was living in Ottawa at the time. This underscores why the US embassy there resembles a fortress. Unfortunately, if they had decided to strike there, it would probably be the only thing left standing in a 2 block radius. Maybe the Israelis would be interesting in moving into the Diefenbunker. (The WW3 nuclear bomb shelter built just out of town by a former PM, since abanoned by the canadian gov't and turned into a museum)

    - - - - - - -

    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.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
  18. Insights by spellraiser · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

    --
    I hear there's rumors on the Slashdots
    1. Re:Insights by Nasarius · · Score: 5, Informative
      Why are the real reasons behind terrorism so rarely discussed?

      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.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    2. Re:Insights by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:Insights by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 4, 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.


      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.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    4. Re:Insights by philbert26 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Suicide bombers don't want to kill themselves, rather they feel they have no alternative.

      If that were true, would they need the incentive of 70 virgins?

    5. Re:Insights by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Umm, you realize most of the Jews who went there went to avoid being killed (this admittedly was a minority), persecuted, or discriminated against elsewhere? And you realize that Hitler and his Final Solution led to the creation of Israel, right? The military capability of Israel to defend itself has partially been because of America's support, but originally was in large part a result of individuals, Jews who believed the existance of a Jewish state in Israel was the only way to assure their children and future generations they would have the opportunity to live their lives and practice their religion freely.


      Now fast forward to today: many Jews leave peacefully and happily in the United States, far more than live in Israel. So maybe Israel isn't necessary to fulfill it's original "Zionist mission". At least right now. Of course, with all of the nice educated folk here on Slashdot who subtly attack Israel and its right to exist, it's not hard to see why many American Jews might still be paranoid enough to continue supporting Zionist causes - we have learned our lessons from history. In any case, there is a reality on the ground, which is many Jews living in Israel and many Palestinian Arabs living in Gaza and the West Bank. The Israelis have won several wars over the last 50 years with their neighbors (who generally speaking attacked them trying to grab land), partially due to overt American support. Of course, that American support was no different from the American support given to other allied democratic governments during the Cold War. And now today, it's pretty tough to just abandon all those Israelis and let them be slaughtered by their unfriendly neighbors.


      In any case, opinions on how to solve the disputes between the Israelis and Palestinians (and both sides certainly have legitimate grievances that need to be resolved), the assertion that if Israel didn't exist, nobody would have been hurt ignores basically all the events of the twentieth century and displays a complete ignorance of historical knowledge.

    6. Re:Insights by philbert26 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Their first major attacks against the US were those bombings in E Africa, killing around 270 of whom around 10% (?) were Americans.

      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.

    7. Re:Insights by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    8. Re:Insights by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Basically, he's Saudi Arabia's Michael Moore.

      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.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    9. Re:Insights by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

    10. Re:Insights by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Al Qaeda are basically a load of racist religous fanatics.

      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?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    11. Re:Insights by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If that were true, would they need the incentive of 70 virgins?

      That virgins in the afterlife for martyrs thing has been blown way out of proportion by the press (because its weird and weird news sells) and by those who have an interest in downplaying these people's real motivations -- sex-crazed nutjobs don't get any sympathy, but the public will have far more empathy for someone who lost their parents and little sister to a "police action."

      If we actually started to gain some insight into what makes these people tick, we might have to address our own short-comings in our handling of the matter and if there is one thing a politician can't do, it is admit that he was wrong.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    12. Re:Insights by Omestes · · 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. But instead we just got more "Great Satan"-esque, engendering more ill will, and raising a whole new generation of terrorists who (rightfully in their eyes) hate us. This was impart made real by the idiot governer of NY turning down money from Jordon, just because they said our support of a genocidal illegitimate regime was a partial cause of the attacks.

      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.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    13. Re:Insights by Fnkmaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

    14. Re:Insights by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    15. Re:Insights by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, I believe all the evidence suggests that OBL didn't actually think the towers would fall on 9/11. The attack was more symbolic than that, and while he certainly wasn't upset that they fell, the success of the mission exceeded his expectations.

      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 fly planes into buildings does.

      It really isn't the numbers that matter, it is the fact that you are on peoples' minds, and that you are causing those people to think about making changes in order to appease you.

      Diplomacy, war, and terrorism are basically different ways of accomplishing the same goal - getting somebody else to do something that you want them to do, that they would otherwise rather not do. The first generally doesn't involve killing, the second generally tries to limit killing to military participants and the fewest number of noncombatants necessary to get them to fall into line, and the third generally has no set rules at all.

      War will not be stopped by being nice to people. Neither will terrorism. Now, not being nice to people will promote both war and terrorism, but they will always exist as long as people hunger for power.

      For some people it isn't enough to have a nice life - they need to be able to control other people to be happy. And so there will always be terrorists...

    16. Re:Insights by wass · · Score: 4, Informative
      I'll probably be modded to hell for actually contradicting some of your anti-Israel FUD, but oh well, bye bye Karma.

      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

      --

      make world, not war

    17. Re:Insights by isaac_akira · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "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.

    18. Re:Insights by Skjellifetti · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    19. Re:Insights by red+floyd · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    20. Re:Insights by jcr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Zionist complicity in the 9/11 attacks is not an unreasonable supposition.

      Guess again, Adolf: The hijackers were saudis and egyptians.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    21. Re:Insights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh yeah, that's smart. It's like saying, "It's my wife's own fault that I beat her, if she didn't always mouth off I wouldn't do it."

      What todays Americans (and I'm American, as it happens) seem to be forgetting is that 99% of muslims are like 99% of christians -- non-fundamentalist. Good people, with good values, that have contributed greatly to our world. Sure, as with all religions, there have been wars and feuds, but we don't blame the Christians for the crusades, either.

      Now, Muqtada al-Sadr and his Al-Qaeda buddies may very well be bad eggs, but their presence in a country, the terrorist activities they pursue, and so on, do not justify the thousands of civilians that have died in the middle east for essentially no cause whatsoever.

      It's rather like Al Qaeda saying, "on the day we ran planes into the WTC, there was a CIA agent who had tortured and killed hundreds of insurgents in the building; our goal was to end his life at all cost. The pentagon was a similar target for similar reasons. Civilians were collateral damage." Would a claim like this, if it could be substantiate, decrease american fury over the WTC attack? No. Hell no. Because even if the agent in question had done the most despicable things imaginable, the people who died on 9/11 were people with families, people who will be missed, whose deaths will be resented and remembered by all who know them. Those 3000 odd deaths were enough to mobilize our country into a trigger happy bout of war-making. Think about that.

      The war appologists who claim that Iraq is "different" because, well, despite the fact that more people died, we were doing it for a cause; or who say, we wouldn't have done it if there hadn't been terrorists in the country, or whatever, are missing the point.

      The families of the civilians that died in the invasion, the ones that had nothing to do with al-qaeda, which would be 99% of them, are going to view the bombings the same way we view the WTC. Do you understand that? Every child of every mother and father killed, every parent of every child who died, they are going to remember this event, and they are going to develop a strong, irrational hatred for its perpetrators. Just as we have for "muslims" after 9/11. And the enlightened ones among them will say things like, "but not all americans are like that, most are ok people". And fools like you will say, "it's their own fault, why don't you ask George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and all those neocon wannabes who is responsible for the deaths incured in <future terrorist attact>."

      The problem with war is that it can always be justified by those that wage it. Including terrorists; believe it or not, these people are not insane. They are not a highly organized bunch of internationally connected serial killers who wish death on others for pleasure, despite what Fox news would have you believe. They believe soundly in the cause they are fighting for, and believe they are justified. We disagree with their motives, just as they disagree with ours. How can you be so sure who's right?

      In the end, we're all people. We all shit, sleep, eat and fuck; we think about the same problems when we're in the same sorts of situations, and if you'd lived abroad for a while and spoke another people's language and knew something about their culture, you'd probably realize that this is true. Bob Dylan said it best, "Even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked".

      But we don't want to understand "terrorists". We lament their inhumane ways of waging war, neglecting completely that the rules of "civilized warefare" were devised by countries that were wealthy and had their own militaries; do you think we have a long history, here in the west, of not targeting civilians? This is a new idea, you know. It's rather like the 18th century "rule" of not targetting officers on the field of combat; a rule which we, the US, broke during the war for our independance, and was in a large part the reason for o

    22. Re:Insights by tupambao · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?


      Read the 911 Comissions finding on terrorism and find out more about the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam bombings. From the 270 people who died only 7 (2,5%) were Americans. You have no right to call the non-americans who died primitive just because they were not the "main" target? Your view matches the main complaint from the Kenyans then, that the Americans were more interested in getting their nationals out of the danger zone and did not care about the locals. The Israelis are the ones who helped. Even the french were more helpful than the americans!

      The US embassy in Nairobi was located right in the city centre opposite the central station. It was flanked on three sides by 4 laned roads, on the other by two bank buildings one about 6 floors and the other 20 floors high.

      The terrorist knew that they would inflict alot of civilian casualties because the embassy personel had been warned that some arab guys had been spotted filming the embassy but no action was taken. The practice then at the US embassy was to have people line up infront of the building to get their visas. The lines were so long that they would go round the building right up to the bank. The spying warning just served to stop the terrorist from getting right up next to the embassy. The local guards (no americans in sight) stopped them from getting right up to the embassy forcing the terrorists to detonate a grenade. The explosion drew people to the windows and that is when they detonated the main bomb. It was around 10 oclock with alot of commuters on the road. The car packed with explosives was right infront of the bank - since they could not get right up to the embassy. The full brunt of the explosion hit the smaller 6 floor house (which housed a secretary/computer school - to help change your "primitive black savages"!) and it collapsed. The 20 floor high rise building lost all of its glass fassade. Bin Laden accepted the civilian casualties and only recougnised the 7 dead americans.

      Talk to the muslims/arabs and you will find out that most of the people sympathise with Al Qaeda's view on America but many do not like him. America has a double standard when it comes to its foreign policy and does not champion democracy as it trumpets so loudly. Allowing democracy to develop in the Arab countries would mean letting islamic fundamentalists winning the elections sometimes. When they win free and fair elections, then let the results stand and not renounce them the way it was done in Algeria or block them like in Egypt as they were gathering momentum. Are fundamentalist states dangerous? Yes, but even they will realise that they do not live in a bubble. The Afganistan Taliban state was dying for international recougnition and went to the extent of blowing up the budha statue to attract attention. The Saud family came to power using an Al Qaeda style movement but shed the fundamentalist part once they came to power so as to operate internationally.

      Its unfortunate that the US only thinks in short term success spans (capture or kill the terrorists) but not in long term success span (change the actual foreign policy problem)!

    23. Re:Insights by jrpascucci · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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

    24. Re:Insights by swillden · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    25. Re:Insights by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful


      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.
  19. Re:Drive recovery... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think this will answer your questions effectively.

    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.

  20. Re:Most important question by AndroidCat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Probably Windows to run FlightSim.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  21. Hindsight is a wonderful thing... by ites · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    1. Re:Hindsight is a wonderful thing... by maelstrom · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

      --
      The more you know, the less you understand.
    2. Re:Hindsight is a wonderful thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      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.

    3. Re:Hindsight is a wonderful thing... by ewn · · Score: 3, Informative
      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.

      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.

      This lesson has been learnt by the British in Northern Ireland, by the Spanish in the Basque Country, by the French in Sardinia,

      Get a map. Sardinia is Italian.

    4. Re:Hindsight is a wonderful thing... by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "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?

  22. I smell a rat by spisska · · Score: 2, Interesting

    While there may be some truth the the story of how Cullison acquired these computers, I highly doubt the CIA would simply let him publish the information the HDs contained.

    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.

  23. Religious Fundamentalism is THE problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Religious Fundamentalism is THE problem by Xel'Naga · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I agree to your conclusion, that Religious Fundamentalism is a bad thing, I am not convinced that all religions are ultimately the same thing.

      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 invalidated, and often replaced by their exact opposite (not "eye for an eye", but "turning the other cheek").

      3. Islam has a long list of laws (Sharia(sp?)) of the kind Christianity underscores that they have not ("Give caesar what belongs to caesar"). Muhammed lead several wars, something very contrary to Christianity.

      4. Hinduism is polytheistic.

      5. Buddism considers God(s) largely irrelevant (but accept Hindi gods). Instead, salvations (termination, rather) is attained by introspection. Rewards in the next life are given because of good Karma. Vastly different from Christianity.

      6. Scientology outright rejects the idea of God, but believes that "guided introspection" can lead to superhuman powers.

      Of these, Christianity, Islam and Judaism are the most alike, and thus the ones which have had most hatred for eachother.
      Yet even the "Being good" part vary quite a bit. "Love thy neighbour" is quite different from "Thou shall not...".

      I think the most similarities are listed by Nietzcshe(sp?) in his theory about a "slave revolt in morality". Unfortunately, one of these similarities is a lack of tolerance of other religions, which Al-Queda's emails provide quite a rich example of.

      Xel'Naga
      --
      I apologize to anyone offended. Feel free to correct me.

  24. Re:Windows or Linux???? by cpghost · · Score: 3, Funny

    Of course, Linux:

    /bin/laden: not found.

    Or perhaps a derivative, named Quaedux.

    Now imagine Darl going after Al Quaeda for copyright infrigements in Quaedux...!

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  25. On The State of War by Rinikusu · · Score: 4, Funny

    FROM: Ali '1st Thief" Baba
    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

    --
    If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
  26. Re:Interesting similarities! by tehanu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Bin Ladin is succeeding in his propaganda war, in large part due to the actions of Bush. Their main aim is to draw the Islamic world and the West into a clash of civilisations. Invading Afghanistan was seen as reasonable by most of the Islamic world - thousands of innocent Americans had just died, there was enormous sympathy and the direct perpetrators were in Afghanistan - that and Afghanistan has no real special religious significance for Muslims, unlike Saudi Arabia or Iraq (The Shrine of Iman Ali, Najaf in general, Baghdad, former capital of the Islamic Caliphate).
    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.

  27. Yup, /.ers in Afghanistan.. by EvilStein · · Score: 4, Funny

    "This was the man who that December would take $1,100 from me in exchange for two of al-Qaeda's most valuable computers--a 40-gigabyte IBM desktop and a Compaq laptop. He had stolen them from al-Qaeda's central office in Kabul on November 12, the night before the city fell to the Northern Alliance. He wanted the money, he said, so that he could travel to the United States and meet some American girls."
    The dude has his priorities straight, that's for sure. :D

  28. Re:The sad truth by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Rather than invade Iraq, our resources would have been wisley spent finding a solution the real problem. About 300 miles to the west of Iraq. The terrorist threat will never cease until the middle east problem is resolved fairly to everyone involved.

    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 follow his exact interpretation of Islam either. It would help a lot in removing the conditions that allow him to recruit deperate people tho.

    At any rate, his claims regarding 'the fight against the jews' are quite likely more political then anything else. It helps with gaining support in that area and since desperation is extremely common among young pallestinians, it makes for easy recruitment. Israelhas been helping with that for quite a bit by trying to reduce the strength of Hamas (but well.. that is a choice between 2 evils for them)

  29. Did anybody else see this and think... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 2, Funny

    about "Danni's Hard Drive", the porno site where the chick is always on the Howard Stern show?

    I had this image of naked Afghanis in veils...

    --
    Who did what now?
  30. Re:Interesting similarities! by Bobzibub · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes. Further to this, the invasion of Iraq sent a strong message to other countries in the US's dog house...

    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 difficulty taking out before Seoul is razed.

    So what is a country in the US's dog house to do now? Their rational choice is to build weapons and WMD ASAP to deter a possible US attack. Syria and Iran likely have a new urgency to their WMD programs now, but other countries are likely ramping up their programs too.

    The pre-emptive war policy will have perverse results.

    -b

    btw, mod parent up please! = )

  31. Hire The Best by MooseByte · · Score: 2, 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.

  32. Re:Drive recovery... by vettemph · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ***
    >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.
    ***

    Can I recommend holding the little platters to a bench grinder until they are nothing but dust?
    Cost: $60
    Time: 20 minutes.

    As far as recovery, I would imagine that you just record the analog signal from the (so called) digital drive and apply an algorith slightly simular to reading '2in5' or other multiwidth barcode signals. Look for step changes at certain amplitudes during the rise from 0 to 1 and so on. Sounds like a fun project for the do-it-yourselfer.

    Another thing. Only two important scenarios should be noted:

    1) When the time comes (knock knock, open up its the [FBI!][Al Quada!][policio!]), you do not have time to write random data 20 times. You better have a very well encrpyted partition that does not automount, forget having a swap file/partition, a password for the PC is not enough :).
    Alternatly , you could use a USB flash drive and a method to physically destroy the chip in five seconds. The drive should be sitting in an arbor press vertically while your using it

    2) If you ever find yourself having the time and need to destroy your data, go with the bench grinder.

    I would imagine that the biggest secret is that anytime the police report that they recovered the data from tha laptop, It was because the crook was careless, not because the cops have skills. They never mention breaking AES256 or anything. They just don't bother to tell you that the data was wide open. I think its called a mindfuck in some circles.

    Cheers

    --
    The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
  33. Deleted Files, From a copied drive? by Manip · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From someone that has copied several drives, I how it works. I would like to ask how he managed to recover deleted e-mails if this was a copy of the original computer files? When you copy something, in general only files not marked with the 'deleted' or 'removed' tag are copied (To speed things up). So unless he used some kind of low level copying function and based on his technical know-how, I'm not sure that he did, it seems unlikely this could be done.

  34. Re:Security by obscurity by Jubedgy · · Score: 2, Informative

    whoa, whoa, whoa, stop right now before you continue to disseminate unfounded fears about nuclear power! First of all, there is nothing wrong with a plant going critical. In fact, if a plant isn't critical, then something's wrong because it's not making any power. There are 3 important terms to know:

    Sub Critical - on average, less than one neutron is gained for every neutron causing fission (ie, neutron flux, or # of neutrons in core) is decreasing -> fewer fissions -> less heat being produced)

    Critical - on average, exactly one neutron is being gained for every neutron causing fission (reactor is mainting current thermal output - GOOD THING TO DO)

    Super Critical - On average, more than one neutron is being gained...yadda yadda yadda (thermal output is rising).

    All modern reactors in the US would, given no human intervention, ultimately end in a shut down state, with the core below the Point of Adding Heat (POAH). There's no need to worry about one causing a nuclear explosion either...Civilian plants use fuel that is very, VERY slightly enriched. In order to cause an explosion you need to compress the U-238 (used in all of our plants, other countries also use Pu) so that the atoms are close enough together to allow neutrons to cause fission without losing too many (to put it simply). Critical mass...something that can't be achieved on any civilian powerplant. Nor on a Navy one either.

    So what could terrorists do? First of all, killing all the workers wouldn't do anything (besides make lots of people angry). The core is protected by a heavy-duty radiation shield (the dome thing most people think of), so they'd have to get a pretty big bomb right next to it to even cause a little damage. If they attack the actual turbine generators, they could cause very cool looking plasma-balls, but those would only cause localized damage and not release any radiation. If they took control of the plant, it's possible they might find some way to release contaminants into the environment, but after TMI (three-mile island, the largest fake scare to cause mass hysteria in the nuclear industry...) doing that became much more difficult. Instead of depending on smart controllers controlling stupid machines, we use smart machines to make sure controllers don't do something stupid. If you're worried about them causing another Chernobyl, in the US at least, don't worry...I won't say it can't happen, but the chances of it coming about is exceedingly small.

    So what's the upshot of all this? I'd be more afraid of them going in space and causing the moon to hit the US than any terrorist using a nuclear plant to kill people. Those in our subs and ships are somewhat more dangerous, but if any terrorist can get to the controls of those (and actually do anything once they get there) then we've pretty much lost already.

    On the other hand, I hope more people think like you do so property values near nukes'll drop and I can get some cheap property near San Onofre (close to San Diego)!

    --
    Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
  35. It's the people that hate sex causing problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why is it that the sexually repressed people of the world flip out and start wars and start killing people? Seriously. When was the last time a place with very liberal ideas about sex started killing people? And the USA does not count with the current crop of uber-conservative anti-sex button pushers in charge. You'd think that most of the people in the world would have figured out that we need constant, high quality sex to maintain peace and stable economies. There go my nipples again.

    1. Re:It's the people that hate sex causing problems. by alptraum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Greeks and Romans don't appear to have been sexually repressed peoples, at least from what is in the history texts, however both are well known to have killed a lot of people and especially the Romans held their wide reaching empire together by fear of the Roman phalanxes massacring any that disobeyed Rome.

      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.

  36. INFORMATION REVEALED!!! by clambake · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dear fellow terrorist,

    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......

  37. Re:Flawed reasoning or lack of world experience? by Archibald+Buttle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is truly tragic that children are being used as weapons. However we need to remember that the responsibility here is with the adults who raise these children to hate, and push them to make suicide attacks. A child of 7-8 is not fully capable of understanding what's going on. Indeed many adults don't seem to be capable of understanding such issues either. Raising children to hate creates a vicious cycle, and this is a great complication.

    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.

  38. [Fw:] OSAMA to his IT guy by zero_config · · Score: 2, Funny

    To: Al-Qaeda IT group
    From: Osama bin Ladin
    Subject: Upgrades?


    Dear brother,
    We are having some serious problems with our training in camps. The Windows XP systems are constatnly becoming pain the the ***. You see, the thing is that we upgraded from Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000 to Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004. After the upgrade, our local administrators applied a IE patch, and now whenever the computers start up, a blue screen appears. And nothing happens. I hope you can fathom the loss of time and training we are experiencing over this. Our to-be-suicide-pilots cannot get the required training now.
    We tried uninstalling MFS 2004 version and re-installing MFS2000 version, but tha MFS 2000 fails to install citing some DirectX compatibility problems. All this is seriously affecting our future planning.
    I want you, my dear brother, to find this Bill Gates guy and find out how to fix this thing. But remember, do not harm in in any way, I hear he is releasing something called XP SP 2 which is going to let hell lose all over the place.
    If he fails to fix our ptoblem, kindly contact the /. guys and tell them all of this stuff, may be they will have some advice ( I hear the talk all day and night long and do nothing).
    Also seek advice from the /. about migrating to Linux and if there is any reliable FLight Simulator available (hijacking scenarios and low altitude urban flight paths training missions required).
    May you rest in peace.
    Osama
    [File Attachment]: Win32.Sasser.worm
    p.s. what is this Win32.Sasser.worm, kindly brief our local IT staff about this, it appears to be with every mail we receive or send out there. I hope this is not some CIA trick to track our emals.
    p.p.s. By second hand compaq laptops and IBM computers from Peshawer, install new hard disks, prepare fake email exhanges between the top 10 most wanted on FBI list and sell those computers to some infidel reporters for a profit. WIll use the profit to get you guys some GeForce 6800 cards, so you can practice some urban warfare with Doom3

    Michael Moore for President

  39. Wow... by BerntB · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Lots of accusations on one side, reasoned discussion on the other.

    Is there a reasoned, sensible pro-Palestinian debate anywhere?

    --
    Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    1. Re:Wow... by Sj0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Heh, call me a hopeless idealist, but I think both sides are wrong. Israel shouldn't be treating criminals like soldiers(assasinations by missle?!), palestinians shouldn't be trying to blow themselves and others up.

      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 of "we hate other religions" land, and barring the religious significance of the location of israel(and obviously the cost), finding a homeland somewhat closer to a freindly face(and somewhat further from those who hate everything that isn't muslum) might be a good idea, since they ARE so obviously out numbered.

      Of course, I'm the sort of person who probably would have moved. Regardless of the righeousness of either side, there's no reason you couldn't find a place to live elsewhere. Judaism is a religion, not a race, and the idea of a jewish homeland is as ludicrious as the idea of a secular homeland, a christian homeland, or a muslim homeland.

      And if I sound anti-Israel, it's only because it's not worth trying to argue with someone who is so convinced they're right that they'll blow themselves to bits. I sound anti-kid when I'm watching a Friday the 13th movie too. :P

      --
      It's been a long time.
    2. Re:Wow... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Judaism is a religion, not a race, and the idea of a jewish homeland is as ludicrious as the idea of a secular homeland, a christian homeland, or a muslim homeland.


      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 case for the Sephardic Jews of Spain, North Africa and Arab countries). Of course, race and ethnicity are funny concepts - what makes an Armenian an Armenian? Is it the language, the culture, the identity, the genetics, or all of the above? In any case, the specifics of whether modern Jews correspond exactly as an ethnic group to the original Hebrew people during the biblical times is as hard to answer as whether modern Palestinian Arabs correspond to biblical "Canaanites" and are really the original inhabitants of the land, simply a different Semitic tribe than the Hebrews (but all broadly of the Semitic "race", whatever that means), or more recent Arab transplants from other Arab regions (in some cases, this is certainly the case, some being very recent Arab transplants indeed).


      Which is why when it comes down to it, what matters is that Palestinian Arabs consider themselves a unique national group within the broader Arab population (though how exactly you tell, say, a Jordanian Arab from a Palestinian Arab is not clear to me - is there truly any ethnic difference whatsoever?), and Jews consider themselves a distinct ethnic group as well.


      I think a big part of the problem is that most Americans are Christians, and the American and Christian concept of religion is that it is something completely distinct from ethnicity, race and nationality. Historically, this is because Christianity is a religion of converts. Judaism is the traditional religion of a particular Semitic tribe, more like Hinduism, which is the collection of evolved tradition and mythology of the peoples of India. In that sense it is unlike its offshoots, Christianity and Islam, both of which grew to include many different racial and ethnic groups through conversion, both forced and voluntary (there are a few specific examples of large-scale conversion to Judaism, such as the Khazar people, and definitely many smaller scale examples, but this is the exception rather than the rule).


      Nobody doubts that Jews can find other places to live right now. The problem was that in 1940 or thereabouts, many Jews couldn't find anywhere to live fast enough, and many died when they were unable to get out of Europe into a country that would take them. That's the justifiable paranoia that I mention that most Jews have ingrained as part of their psyche - it derives from centuries of getting kicked out of various countries or being persecuted or slaughtered by various host countries.

    3. Re:Wow... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Well, again back to the India/Hinduism analogy. They call themselves "Indian" because they come from a country called India (Bharat in Hindi, I believe), but that is a modern, artificial designation. The traditional religion of the ethnic groups of the region is Hinduism, which is composed of a traditional cultural caste system derived from Indo-European roots - the line between the religion and the ethnicity is not drawn in any strong way by its practioners.


      The concept of "genetic background" and "race" are basically problematic concepts to begin with. There are no clear cut races at all per se, there are cultural identities and groupings of genetic traits within particularly communities, and plenty of evidence points to the fact that Ashkenazi Jews have a whole bunch of distinct genetic characteristics (such as tendencies to suffer from particular genetic diseases, like Tay Sachs syndrome). In any case, there is a name for the Semitic tribe I referred to though, they called themselves the Hebrews. Ultimately the people who were the Hebrews were thrown out of the land of Israel, and they became the Ashkenazim (the Hebrews who migrated to Germany and Eastern Europe) and the Sephardim (the Hebrews who migrated to Spain, North Africa and the Arabic lands) in the diaspora, the two modern ethnic groupings of Jews, who also have slight variations in their pronunciation of the Hebrew language, and variations in their traditions and practices of the Jewish religion. Plenty of Americans of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage are not practicing Jews at all - and, many seem surprised to discover that the majority of Israeli Jews are ethnic Ashkenazim or Sephardim, but not practicing religious Jews at all.


      As an odd aside, here in America, many Jews attend Reform or Conservative synagogues, but still drive on Saturdays and don't keep Kosher, and the Orthodox, or traditionally observant, Jews form a small minority. In Israel, on the other hand, things are far more extreme - people seem to mostly be either traditionally observant Jews or completely nonreligious.

  40. Re:Drive recovery... by tyrantnine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I read semi-thoroughly through the first section of the article you mentioned but didn't gather just how the use of an electronic microscope (or anything else) makes it possible to make sense of randomized data. Unfortunately the article provides a lot of links but some of them are fluff - such as:

    "Recent developments at the National Institute of Standards and Technology"

    Where there is no link to the article describing this Technique, but simply to www. nist.gov.

    Perhaps someone with a better understanding of how all this works could elaborate a little more. If I overwrite a section of hard disk with a 7-pass algorithmn, what exactly is an electronic microscope going to be able to do to help figure out what was there? I assume there must be a way to see whats been there before (how?) and then somehow detect the chronological order to differentiate whatever the original data was versus the overwritten junk (how?). This article doesn't mention either, nor does it provide a link explaining either (that I found anyway).

    A little deeper explanation of how a hard disk is put together, and how one might be able to unearth was on a healthy sector after it's been overwritten 7 times would be appreciated. Though I don't obviously know any facts, I find it very difficult to believe there's really any useful or effective technique by simply reading this article. Without a deeper understanding of how hard drives are put together, it would seem a rather impossible task to take a section of overwritten hard disk and make sense of what was once there.

  41. Fuckwit by empaler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are no objective truths.

    Insight is only given to the seeker of insight, and you, Sir (or Madam), are a fuckwit.

    My truth is that I do not believe in the existence of God (Allah/JHVH/etc), but I can not rule their existence out of the realm of the possible. Why not?
    I have no way of proving nor disproving the existence of a being capable of creating a universe, and therefore control the rules governing this universe, and in the end, the means to control the evidence of existence/non-existence.

    On the choice of a deity to not show itself:
    Why should I care whether or not my code knows that I've created it, as long as it does what I've designed it to?

  42. Re:What A Joke! by kad77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As a long time slashdot reader I registered just to respond to this utter crap. The parent get a plus one for... what? Inane rhetoric?

    "transhuman", Would you like to cite references for your baseless (in our collective reality) conspiracy, or just skip right to psychiatric help perhaps?

    If you believe that many hundreds, even thousands of "inside" people could keep a "plot" like yours together for any extended period of time, you do not understand human nature.

    But of course, citing you: "This is amateur night at its worst. It makes my bank robberies look high-tech." You know all about keeping big secrets... toad

    Get on some meds, or call in to Coast-To-Coast AM for some real psuedo-intellectual laughs!

  43. Re:Strawman by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Just because they're prisoners, doesn't mean they aren't civilians.


    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.