Reply #29: If you can't remember the anthrax panic of September aught-ONE (not -two)

[JackRiddler]

...which would be puzzling - weren't you on-planet? - you could always make use of your reading lessons.

Anthrax was introduced as a theme well before the letters arrived anywhere, with propaganda focusing on details such as Atta's swollen hands at a Florida pharmacy and the government ordering the grounding of crop-duster planes on Sept. 24, with ample national news coverage.

As for the panoply of other germ terrors sure to come, one scare-sample of many (do you have Lexis?):

Anthrax, Smallpox, Plague: Reborn as Bioweapons?
By Barry James
International Herald Tribune (=NYT & WP)
October 12, 2001

The threat of anthrax, an ancient scourge described in the Bible, again hangs over mankind. And one of history's great medical advances—the defeat of smallpox—could be undone if the worst of the dark fears stirred up by the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington come to pass.

Also lurking in the background is another of the human race's great enemies: bubonic plague. It was probably the Black Death that killed a third of Europe's population in the Middle Ages.

Anthrax, smallpox, and plague are three of the biological agents that experts fear most, should terrorists seek to carry out an even deadlier attack, because these diseases can be spread so quickly through a population.

While there are significant practical difficulties in mounting an attack using any of them, terrorists may already have the capability to do so. The CIA warned earlier this year that terrorist groups were actively searching the Internet for information on biological weapons, as well as chemical and nuclear ones. And the terrorist suspect Osama bin Laden said in 1998 that it was a "religious duty" to acquire unconventional weapons.

"I'm not trying to be alarmist," said Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff, "but we know these terrorist organizations have probably found the means to use biological and chemical weapons."

I'm not trying to be alarmist, either, but Card also knew his own terrorist organization had just reactivated its biowarfare research and development a few months earlier.

"Isn't it suspicious that the media dropped everything and started talking anthrax?"

No, it's irresponsible, but nothing new for them. More importantly, it is a predictable consequence of the anthrax attacks, and therefore worthy of consideration as motive for a psychological operation.

"Isn't it suspicious that the FBI started investigating a crime?"

Certainly not. It's suspicious that they therefore shut down half of the investigation of another crime, their biggest crime ever, overnight, to complaints from the field agents working the Sept. 11 case. (And with resignations of the investigation leaders to follow in November.) Did you notice how that long FBI 9/11 investigation timeline recently released in redacted form tails off soon after?

"In 2006, the FBI revised its assessment of the anthrax powder. While it was of exceptional purity and quality, scientists now say it lacked signs of the special milling process necessary for weaponization."

So, in 2001 the FBI said it was weaponized. Scientists with actual names were cited saying so in the press at the time, as linked above. As opposed to the "scientists now say" of 2006, who go nameless in a Wall Street Journal article with clear editorial elements and slams at "the agenda of the political left, which didn't want the trail of evidence to prove state-sponsorship of terror – particularly by Iraq."

So back then the FBI gets as far as Hatfill, a veteran of the dirty war on behalf of Rhodesia's last stand war, who happens to be acquainted with many other scientists in US biowarfare research. There, the investigation mysteriously stalls. At "lone scientist" and "person of interest," possibly because to go beyond that to "government laboratory" and "team" is unthinkable.

FIVE YEARS LATER, besieged by Hatfill's partisans and facing his suit, "the FBI revised its assessment" and "scientists now say."

What kind of mind puts full faith in historical revision on this level of bullshit (from the Murdochized WSJ, no less) instead of the original stories with actual scientist cites?

"So this was all getting caught up in the general Iraq bullshit."

Says you, devising the excuses on their behalf, and not caring what the actual reasons may have been. As usual.

"Instead of finding the real culprit(s), the investigation became part of the march to war."

Nope. The sequence was exactly reversed: soon after the mailings arrived, there was all the howling about al-Qaeda and how maybe Atta got a vial from that (non-existent) Iraqi agent (he didn't meet) in Prague. Then, by the time there was an open "march" to the Iraq invasion (starting low-key in the spring of 2002 and really launched in Aug./Sep. 02), the FBI had already settled on its idea of weaponized anthrax produced by "lone scientist" within the US biowarfare programs. By that time, the Oct. 01 anthrax attacks had turned into a footnote for the media, at best.

"Umm, a few things happened between the tabloid attack and the stockpile destruction. Right, Jack? Wasn't that, oh, I don't know, maybe the other attacks?"

And this justifies the destruction of the original samples, or the approval of it by the FBI, in what way exactly?

"And, putting on my Perry Logan hat, why is it that only now the virus is getting destroyed?"

That hat is notorious for lowering your IQ. For starters, it's a bacteria.

"ISU asked to destroy it."

The story as related in the Times coverage clearly leaves other possibilities open as to who may have asked them to "ask." Regardless of the idea's origin, it's suspect and destroys the lineage and thus possible evidence in the case. How do you imagine that this is rational, inoccuous behavior?

People die from anthrax samples that might be identified and traced using this stockpile, and to you the logical reaction of the university is to immediately destroy its stockpile after keeping it for more than 80 years? And the FBI says, sure, go ahead, why not? Strange, the Times story suggested there was something controversial about it, I wonder why.

"Now Iowa State is in on it?"

Presumably not, or they would have kept the samples for future attacks. Way to not get the point!

"Will the madness never end????"

The healing can start any time you're willing. I recommend meditation as a first step. Try to visualize your chosen enemies as subjects in their own right. Repeat this line of thought: "Winning is not everything. I can be wrong. Seeing this is good for me."

"Sounds like something a little more worth your average war protestor's time..."

Why don't you let this average war protestor, whoever he/she is, decide?

"and not this insane 'inside job' bullshit"

What about your precious time, then? And the bile can't be good for you, either.

Thanks for the exercise. Please have the last word on this sub-thread.