Yeah, I agree with you about the cultural stuff - I was responding to your point about access to information etc.
I don’t see that anyone has responded to my linked article about anthrax turning up in Pakistan. This would seem (if true) to be strong evidence for the attacks being related to the WTC attacks.
Well, one of us is ignoring evidence and making broad assumptions. I’ll leave it to the readers of this thread to decide which.
Oops. Last post was directed to Collounsbury.
Izzy, thanks for the links. I agree that this is evidence of a link, but I would reserve judgment on that until we see if the anthrax turning up in Pakistan is the same strain as that being mailed in the US.
Of course, I’m sure Collounsbury will say that we are just being “blinkered,” and that white supremacists could have simply flown to Pakistan and mailed the letters there. Occam’s Razor be damned!
Until, spoke there is confirmation that the Paki case involves the same strain I don’t see it going one way or the other.
I’ve been in touch with my Arab contacts, Anthrax terror threats, unheard of before, have been rampant.
Now I’m sure spoke has stopped to consider in his application of Occam’s Razor the above and that anthrax is endemic to the region – cattle, sheep etc – and certainly in Pakistan & Afghanistan. The chance of copy-cat attack (regardless and seperate from the issue of who has done what in re our domestic threat) is very high. That, of course, does not prove that it is not part of the same threat.(*)
Occam’s Razor, that vastly misunderstood and abused standard, should be applied in accordance with a full consideration of all objective data. It is not easily applicable in these circumstances, as anyone who’s done risk analysis as a profession knows. GIGO.
Bloody hell people, stop jumping to fucking conclusions based on a slim understanding of the issues.
(Again, I’m maintaining an agnostic stance in general and will certainly be open to revising my positions when and if we have solid information on the strain, type and detials of the Paki anthrax.)
(*: A close reading of the prior thread, 2nd page in reply to Sam, will suggest to you a private theory in re the ‘domestic issue’ and sub-Continental connections.)
Arrogance and profanity! Nice technique!
(By the way, is profanity appropriate in GD? I thought not, but perhaps I am mistaken. My “slim understanding” is to blame, I suppose. Fuck it.)
spoke-, I think you misunderstood the point about the use of “Allah” instead of “God”. Arabic-speaking Muslims do not translate “Allah” to “God” for the benefit of English speakers. They do so because “Allah” is the word for “God” in the Arabic language. It does not necessarily imply the Muslim God. So even when a Muslim is aware of international recognition of the word “Allah”, he will not feel the need to use the Arabic word when speaking English. Now this, along with the date format, is not strong evidence of domestic terrorism, but it still strikes me as rather odd that the person who penned these letters would take such pains to emphasise his affiliation with Islam while nevertheless using the American date format. Just seems odd to me, that’s all.
IzzyR, the Jang newspaper in Pakistan is an Urdu-speaking newspaper. As such, it is the most conservative major newspaper in Pakistan (the others being English-language newspapers, are more “Western” and progressive, as they cater to a more Westernised audience). Views expressed in the Jang tend to be of a pretty patriotic and religious nature. Of course, the Jang does not openly criticise the Pakistani government’s actions regarding the U.S. air strikes in Afghanistan or any other matter, as the press is generally not free to do so without serious repercussions (certain English-language newspaper editors have been imprisoned in the past for speaking out too freely against the government). If the intention was to target supporters of the U.S. then the Jang was a pretty poor choice.
If the terrorists had decided to use a plane of some kind to launch their attacks, would it not make sense for them to check out all options available?
I know they were trying to get training in jumbos etc, but it’s not inconceivable that they would be looking at any and all types of planes available to them. This would seem to be the essence of good planning (i.e. refining and adapting plans, checking alternatives and so on).
I bet they looked at a whole load of planes, it’s just that with the fear of bio-weapons it’s the crop-dusters which stuck in people’s minds… No doubt they looked at everything from Cessnas upwards - it’s an understandable leap of logic to suggest that they were looking at crop-dusters with regard to their crop-dusting capabilities, but it could simply be that crop-dusters are a readily available type of aircraft in that part of the world.
Given the resources open to the 11/9 terrorists it seems (in my untrained opinion!) unlikely that they would even bother with Anthrax - from what I hear it’s a pretty hopeless bio-weapon compared with other options (sarin gas, perhaps). Seems more like some small-time nutcases (homegrown or otherwise) have been watching too many action films (or listening to too much heavy metal!).
Would it make sense to use crop-dusters to spread anthrax?
– Quirm
Quirm wrote:
[quote]
If the terrorists had decided to use a plane of some kind to launch their attacks, would it not make sense for them to check out all options available?
[quote]
Except that (IIRC) they were asking specific questions about the “dusting” mechanism.
I don’t know. And I suspect the terrorists didn’t know either, which is why they would have been investigating the possibility.
I do know that crop dusters got grounded after the attack and even now are severely restricted. Why the restrictions if they can’t be used for this purpose?
I also know that one government study on anthrax included a hypothetical scenario involving a 2-kilometer-long trail of anthrax being released upwind from a city. Seems like that might be a job for a crop-duster.
Oh yes, and don’t forget that the authorities found a crop-dusting manual among the terrorists’ possessions. Not necessary if all they intended to do was to fly the crop duster into a building.
Hmm… I would indeed agree that’s all a bit suspect 
– Quirm
ANTHRAX LETTER
In Karachi the editor of a leading Pakistani daily, the Urdu language Jang, said on Friday powder found in an envelope hand-delivered to his newspaper the previous week has tested positive for anthrax spores.
<snick>
It is the first confirmed anthrax case in Pakistan.
REUTERS Reut04:29 11-02-01
Sorry, Collounsbury, but as mentioned by others, I find it extremely hard to believe that this incident is due to US based militias or copy cats of some sort. The fact that the 9/11 terrorists had investigated crop dusters is quite significant.
If you are learning to fly a plane, trying to get instruction on a crop duster is like trying to learn how to drive an automobile by learning on a high performance sports car. A crop duster has a high degree of agility and power that make them particularly unsuited to student instruction. They are nowhere near as stable as a good old wing-over taildragger airplane. What’s more, cropdusters are rarely two seaters, a requisite for student instruction. You are somehow able to overlook a strong element of cohesion between access, methods, implementation and intention on the part of the terrorists. Frankly, I am not.
Your continuing claims that the anthrax threat is not of external origin are beginning to lose their credibility. While it is important to find out which particular strain of anthrax is involved in the Pakistan incident, I am daily finding it more difficult to believe that the anthrax threat is anything but another international terrorist attack. However poor a choice targeting the Jang was, it is still a high-profile attack and will achieve the desired effect no matter. I am curious as to how you reconcile the Pakistani event.
Well, Zenster, I’m not arguing that the anthrax attacks are of necessity “domestic” per the supremacist angle – I don’t know how much more often one could lace one’s writing with disclaimers to the contrary. I simply don’t see your and spoke’s logic as being cohesive nor coherent. Your having a hard time believing doesn’t particularly sway me.
(a) If anthrax was being spread by crop-dusting or related means then there would be a strong connection, per se. It is not. Thus we’re asked to make a chain of assumptions.
(b) The connection between the Atta crop dusting angle and anthrax rests on unsupported assumptions (to date) notably that Atta et al intended to use planes to spread anthrax or biological agents (as opposed to chemical agents, e.g. some poison gas combo) and further that they are connected to the current anthrax.
Without a chain of evidence, there is just not a reason to connect the two events.
The sole issue I am coming out strongly on is this assumed, ipso facto, connection between Atta and the anthrax events – presuming I’m understanding that your collective argument is for a direct rather than indirect connection, the only way the crop duster angle works as I see it in this scenario.
I’ll note as an aside to prevent yet more ‘readings’ into my statements that I don’t think there was consdiration by Atta of a chem-bio attack via crop dusters. I’m sure there was. That angle appears to have been dropped or put off, and we as of yet have no good evidence to link anthrax to crop dusting.
© until the Paki letter strain is confirmed I see no reason to conclude that copy cat attack is not a valid option. Pakistan has plenty of decently educated folks, they have endemic anthrax to my understanding (the 1st reported case ref’ing to my reading 1st reported case of anthrax terrorism, if my understanding is wrong in that Pakistan is no longer an anthrax endemic area then perhaps that changes the equation, although past presence of anthrax certainly does not exclude local culturing per what our own native anthrax boy did/tried) and they’ve had the time to watch the frenzy build up in the USA.
I’m getting the sense here that you and spoke seem to beleive that the fact I am arguing against your conclusions and assumptions means I’ve decided on the supremacist angle or what not. I suggest an unpartisan reading of my statements in no way supports that. Rather, I don’t see your judgements as internally consistent.
When the data comes in to sway, the one should sway. There’s far too much unclear and contradictory info here.
Reports of Anthrax Emerge in Germany, Pakistan and India
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:09 p.m. ET
In India, the health secretary of a western state said Friday that powder found in an envelope in a government office tested positive for anthrax and would be examined further.
Meanwhile, in Germany, initial tests came back positive for anthrax on a letter and two packages. Later tests in Berlin found no evidence of the bacteria, officials said. The letter had a return address in Islamabad, Pakistan, and a German postmark dated Oct. 24.
At the U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece, traces of bacteria have been found in a mailbag, the State Department said Friday in Washington. Greek officials said a suspicious envelope sent to a U.S. Navy base was also being tested.
In Pakistan, white powder in a letter received Oct. 23 by the Daily Jang newspaper tested positive for anthrax, said Dr. Mohammed Tasleem of Agha Khan University Hospital in Karachi.
Most of the 120 employees at the U.S. Embassy in Lithuania are taking antibiotics – although none showed symptoms of anthrax – after a laboratory in the Baltic country confirmed Thursday that traces of anthrax were found in at least one mailbag at the embassy.
(Emphasis mine)
Methinks that the Christian Identity movement (or whatever homegrown militia you wish to name) doesn’t have many members working out of Islamabad.
Here’s hoping that this will serve as a wake up call to the rest of the civilized world that this is indeed a threat to everyone concerned. This is not merely an attack upon the United States, this is an attack upon humanity. Any and all victim nations must rally as one to bring these scum to justice or death. Nothing less is acceptable.
Well, according to Bloomberg: Yet fears that anthrax-tainted mail attacks had spread to Western Europe were eased as two German states said suspicious substances believed earlier in the day to contain anthrax, were free of the bacteria.
Conclusive tests of suspicious mail revealed the substances contained bacteria that, while similar to anthrax, are harmless, according to Reinhard Kurth, president of the government’s Robert Koch Institute for health. The results this evening are so far all negative,'' Kurth said. We are 98 percent certain that these are not anthrax bacteria.’’ [www.bloomberg.com – links to the actual report don’t cut and paste for me, you’ve gotta go through the site]
How many of the false reports are there now? Germany and Kenya to name but two. Methinks it’s a domestic whacko with only a small amount of anthrax.
Speaking of unclear and contradictory info….
Maybe it is a little bit too early to say that it is anthrax, in the original news I saw, the alleged source of the envelope was mired in contradictory reports. And then this curious bit:
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011102/wl/attack_anthrax_pakistan_dc.html
International mail? I could swear that early it was reported that the envelope was delivered by hand, implying it was a local source. A red herring?
It was already established that in the US attacks, there was a connection with bacteria cultures created in the US. And research was still continuing in “secret” in the US also. I would still not drop the local terrorist angle. But very early in another tread I already expressed my theory that both domestic and foreign terrorists are thinking and doing the same. The domestic terrorists are acting not in support of the foreign terrorists, but only to seed more chaos and eventually (in their twisted minds) take over the government. The means are the same; the ends are different. And we should not forget that around the world there are always opposition groups that will incite domestic chaos for the same reasons.
Yeah, well, why don’t we wait for confirmation given (a) false positives are common due to numerous factors (b) India, is well, India. There are agendas.
The follow ups say it all. Again, leaping to conclusions in a quasi-panic atmosphere ain’t real logical Zenster. Your MO, but not real logical. Of course, even had this panned out, my prior notes in re sourcing the anthrax stand. Outside of the developed world the disease is not the strange unknown thing it is here.
Given diplo pouches could have been contaminated through DC pouch runs, I think we need more data before screaming that the anthrax-sky is falling in.
See prior arguments, and follow-ups.
Again until more is known, cross-contamination and false positives are all posibilities. Even with anthrax, again knowing the source is necessary before leaping to conclusions. Not that this will hinder you, but just for the record.
Yes, indeed.
I think you need to chill and take incoming reports from abroad, esp. from third world countries with a large grain of salt until independant confirmation comes in.
I’d rather have a modicum of calm and rationality rather than beating the drum of panic and reaction. There is clearly a large learning curve here in the USA and as much so elsewhere in re id’ing this. Again, all prior caveats apply.
Chill.
[Slight hijack:]
Look again at the nations targeted and then tell me this is really an “attack upon humanity”…
Thus far it has tended to be the US, their representatives overseas (Lithuanian Embassy), their allies (Germany, Pakistan) and so on. If the US and the rest keep pretending they are fighting a war, then they must continue (surely?) to not only run the risk but also to accept the risk that there will be a response from those they are fighting.
I have a feeling that Malawi, Iceland and the Maldives (for example) are unlikely to be quaking in their boots and feverishly checking their Cipro stocks - simply because this is not an “attack upon humanity” (of which the Malawians are certainly a part) but an attack by one agressor against another in a war.
As people have been so fond of saying with regard to Afghan casualities: “This is a war - bad stuff happens. Get over it.”
Same applies here…?
[Hijack over]
Collounsbury wrote:
I for one am making no assumtions. What I am doing is examining evidence, all of which is circumstantial at this point.
Please re-read the OP. I outlined my view that the circumstantial evidence thus far available strongly suggests foreign terrorists are behind the attacks. I then invited anyone who disagreed to point out contradictory evidence for discussion. See? An open mind. If I wasn’t open to persuasion, I wouldn’t have created the thread.
I am still open to evidence (and circumstantial evidence will do) that domestic terrorists are involved. In my view, the weight of circumstantial evidence still strongly suggests foreign terrorists. YMMV. (And here’s a hint for future reference: Arrogant and dismissive cracks do not constitute evidence.)
Let me examine a couple of additional points you raised earlier (albeit somewhat obscurely):[ul][li]The anthrax strain was of “domestic origin.” This is no evidence at all. As was pointed out in the other thread, the so-called “Ames strain” was shipped to researchers worldwide, and more specifically, was shipped to Iraq in the 1980s.[]You also remarked (vaguely) about the choice of targets. Seems entirely consistent to me. Target the government (just as the terrorists did in the 9/11 attack) and target the press to maximize the hype and hysteria. One object of terror is to create in the mind of citizens the idea that their government cannot protect them. The choice of a tabloid newspaper just strengthens my argument, since it shows that the sender of the anthrax didn’t fully understand American media. Supremacists wouldn’t have bothered with the tabloids, but would have only gone after more respected news outlets. []Departure from al-Qaeda “methodology and style.” How so? We know that al-Qaeda has carried out assasinations. (For example, there was the Northern Alliance leader who was assasinated by use of a bomb hidden in a camera). We also know that al-Qaeda has been seeking weapons of mass destruction, including biological and nuclear weapons. I don’t see the big leap you seem to see. Can you expound on this?[/ul][/li]
Am I missing anything? I still think the evidence outlined in the OP is stronger, but I am still open to other evidence.
You and I are in agreement that we can draw no conclusions from the suspected anthrax attacks in other parts of the world until we know a few more things:[ol][]Is the powder involved in each attack actually anthrax?[]Is it the same strain as that used in the US attacks?Does it appear to have been subjected to the same “processing?” (I.e. are the same additives present?)[/ol]
Of course you’re making assumptions. Given that there is little to no absolute evidence one has to make assumptions. The question is then, on what to make them?
Your judgment, for example, of what is likely/expected is based on a set of assumptions on both al-Qaeda and domestic terrorists.
Well, you don’t seem to be doing a terribly good job of examining your underlying assumptions in regards to the circumstantial evidence. E.g., the judgment on what the attack on the HQ of the supermarket rags means. That judgment is based on assumptions, which I personally feel are at best shaky.
Evidence was presented, largely in the other thread. You’ve chosen to discount it all based on a whole menu of assumptions – of obscure origin and basis—about both domestic and foreign terrorists means and methods.
Among them:
(a) The location of the attacks is indicative of foreign terrorists. As I already noted, white supremacists operate in Penn . and at least in the 1980s were active in Long Island, and as I recall Western NY not to mention of course Northern Florida. (I’d see SPLC as reputable source on these issues if you actually doubt this: http://www.splcenter.org/intelligenceproject/ip-index.html ) Implicit in this assumption that that the location is indicative of origin is that the folks must be bumfuck yokels from Idaho and environs. As I mentioned our dear supremacist who was previously caught in schemes whose outline look rather like this event was quite well-travelled in the USA, hell he had a Benz.
(b) There is an ipso facto connection between Atta et al and these groups, thus, by leap of logic their separate and apparently dead-ended inquiries into crop-dusters must be connected to current anthrax. We simply do not have data to connect the two. They may have been thinking of chemical attacks or lord knows what. Given no evidence of anthrax in their hands, given the quite different method of delivery, there is no logical reason to connect the two. Nota Bene: this is not to say there is no reason to be concerned about al-Qaeda using this kind of delivery, but rather there is no a priori reason to connect the two without a number of strong and unfounded assumptions.
© The continued assumption in re for gov involvement. Again that was dealt with in the other thread in re the state of the art in re manipulating biological materials. I see no reason to maintain this.
(d) Assumption that “Americans wouldn’t want to hurt Americans”: various extremist hate groups have shown little compunction in the past about who they hurt. As I noted TMcV admitted in interviews that he noted the presence of the nursery in the Ok. Gov building and went ahead. Your assumption that a domestic terrorist can not or would not be able to rationalize away the fallout seems unfounded given actual evidence.
All of this is not to argue for the domestic angle per se, I remain highly agnostic, but only to note that the raft of assumptions you’re making in re the evidence strike me as unfounded.
I’ve seen this assertion and I’ve seen the rebuttal in that same bloody thread that the responsible official for UN inspections specifically stated that “Ames” was not in Iraqi hands. The statement is cited in the other thread. Further, everything I have read recently from public and subscription news sources has been indicating that the Ames strain is domestic. So, to stick with the idea Iraq is the source one has to make some large set of assumptions once more. Or just ignore best current evidence. Selective reading of evidence?
Of course one can not disprove a hypothetical that Ames got into foreign hands relevant to al-Qaeda et al, but on the other hand neither can one assume this. It throws the whole door open.
Again, you seem to have cherry picked the points rather than actually thinking about them. I noted that based on my experience in the region over a long period of time that the choice of targets reflected someone “inside” American culture, someone acclimatized to the USA in a fairly complete way. That does not tell me per se domestic, I entertain a theory in re a Sub-Continent connection involving a long-term resident sympathizer to al-Qaeda as a 50-50 option with a pure domestic scenario (which again is split in my mind between a possible white supremacist option and a Nation of Islam type option. There just is not evidence however to really favor anything.)
As for the targets per se, their choice per se – that is at the abstract level of attacking the government and media can fit either profile. There’s just not a reason to prefer one over the other.
This is precisely what I meant about assumptions. You’re making a series of strong assumptions (based on?) in regards to the (a) knowledge of media (b) the preferred targets © desires of the attack. I know of no actual data on this so we have to rely on assumptions.
So, where are these assumptions coming from?
(a) In regards to the choice of a tabloid, I draw the very opposite conclusion based on my experience in the region and exposure to the immigrant community here in the USA. Frankly the only people I’ve known to truly care about the rags are Americans or really acclimatized immigrants on the lower end of the income/education scale. I see nothing to support your supposition.
(b) Supremacists not bothering with tabloid. Again, on what basis do you derive this assertion and why? I see no objective reason to assert it. Given we do not know the source – I don’t recall that the letter was been found or positively id’d—we have only speculation. Dry run? Test case against a despised newspaper for printing lies about Elvis? Who the fuck knows?
I don’t see much reason to expand on this as the idea has been gone over again and again both here and in the other thread, which you’ve actively ignored.
(a) al-Qaeda has not previously targeted the media. Where subsidiary and related groups like al-Gamaa al-Islaamiya or the GIA have targeted the media, it has been via direct assassinations. They pick their target and put a bullet in the poor bastid’s head etc. E.g. while we don’t know that Masoud was killed by al-Qaeda, the methodology is precisely theirs or GIA. I’d lay good money that the two Algerians were GIA, it stinks of their style. Direct action, targeted to the person you want, calculated, well-planned and no-exit.
(b) al-Qaeda and related groups have not historically left either notes or other materials. Their self-conception seems to be that of soldiers on commando raids, not ‘terror-spreaders’ seeking simply to frighten. E.g. the conception – and it seems not far from wrong in some ways – of attacking the WTC was a military strike against the American economy. A Saudi like ObL understands quite well US power derives in no small part from economic prowess.
© The notes themselves strike me as amateurish and an outsider’s idea of what they would say. It doesn’t match the rhetoric I’ve heard, and I’ve heard a lot. That leads me towards the conclusion the perp is definitely not al-Qaeda per se. That of course tells us nothing, insofar as it could be a peripheral wannabe, an unrelated sympathizer or a purely domestic non-Islamic connection.
(d) Weapons of mass destruction: of course here we have to open the door to experimentation. It may be they have recently acquired anthrax and are experimenting or that a fringe group is doing so on their part. I would favor the latter, again because the notes and haphazard style.
(e) However, at the same time we have a direct case of white supremacists (i) planning anthrax terrorism to be blamed on Arabs, “mud people” (ii) actual example of one such person actually prepping (iii) a history of thinking along the lines of the necessity/utility of mass-panic/confusion and reaction in order provoke a revolution against the ZOG. Style and delivery look a lot more like people thinking along these lines than past practice by al-Qaeda or related groups.
Overall, the evidence is confusing and ambiguous at best. To get the “strong” case you think you have, you require a number of assumptions for which I see little objective support for. They may or may not be right, but I don’t see them trumping the objections raised to them so far. So, you can of course blithely ignore the objections but I frankly don’t find that terribly impressive.
Well, you’ve made a series of strong assumptions which lock into the desired conclusion. Stepping back and critically examining those conclusions suggests to me that there is no evidence going one way or another.
Well, I do agree there.
In any case, one reads in the WP today that the embassy contaminations are attributed to the diplo pouches being contaminated in State processing in DC.
Collounsbury, please refrain from accusing me of panic and hysteria. If I was so prone to such lunacy, why in Hades would I welcome you into my threads discussing these same issues for your own insights? Feel free to go into detail about this.
I also maintain that these attacks are in fact a threat to all humanity. Those who are conducting these bioterrorist assaults are doing so with a rather complete disregard for human life and the impact of their acts upon the innocents involved. That being the case, I can only wish a speedy death to all of them. Not out of fear, but out of a rage at such wanton evil.