CNN anthrax program, next Sunday

[MaGZ]

Bruce Ivins colleagues sue feds over anthrax probe.

It appears Bruce Ivins’ colleagues have taken the first step to clear his name. In the article it is claimed other scientists were pressured by the FBI to confess to the crime. Also there is some interesting information on how it was impossible for Ivins to have produced the dry anthrax powder within just a few hours.

SCIENTISTS SLAM FBI 'THRAX PROBE IN BID TO CLEAR BUDDY 'DR. DOOM'

http://www.nypost.com/seven/1102200...m_fbi_thrax_probe_in_bid_to_136476.htm?page=0

 

[MaGZ]

CNN will have a special news program on the anthrax letters next Sunday 8 ET. In the promo they ask, “Did the government accuse the wrong man?”

 

[MaGZ]

Most people who saw the CNN documentary probable will conclude Bruce Ivins was responsible for the attacks. The FBI’s case seems to be mostly based upon is his obsession with a particular woman and her sorority. Also the FBI claims the anthrax strain was traced to one beaker held in Ivins custody. Another study reveled at the end of the program says this claim is less than conclusive.

Here is Ivins’ lawyer who held a press conference shortly after his death.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-yXpr6dV_w

 

[Brainache]

Well MaGZ, I don't know. It wouldn't be the first time a criminal investigation got the wrong man and I doubt it would be the last.

I certainly don't believe that the anthrax was produced and posted by Mossad to scare GWB into invading Iraq, if that is what you think.

 

[MaGZ]

Well MaGZ, I don't know. It wouldn't be the first time a criminal investigation got the wrong man and I doubt it would be the last.

I certainly don't believe that the anthrax was produced and posted by Mossad to scare GWB into invading Iraq, if that is what you think.

It wasn’t just Bush they wanted to scare but the entire nation and particularly the US Senate which had to issue some sort of authorization for the invasion of Iraq. The National Enquire was first to get killer anthrax and bring the attack to the attention of the nation. A National Enquire headline about an anthrax attack would inform everyone even those who don’t watch TV news.

ABC NBC CBS anthrax followed which was relatively harmless when compared to the Enquire and Senate letters. Finally the weaponized anthrax sent to the two Senators topped it all off.

The invasion of Iraq was based upon the premise of Iraq having WMDs. Remember Colin Powel presentation at the UN when he held up a small vile suggesting Sadam had anthrax?

 

[nvidiot]

The invasion of Iraq was years later, and people were a tad preoccupied at the time with Afghanistan and "the war on (foreign) terrorism" to be worried about what for all appearances was a domestic terrorism case.

I don't know if the guy who's been fingered for the anthrax letters did it. I'm not entirely sure it's possible to know really. But I don't think it was a government plot to encourage the invasion of Iraq. Few governments are that efficient, and the Bush administration wasn't exactly what you would call, "competent".

 

[MaGZ]

The invasion of Iraq was years later, and people were a tad preoccupied at the time with Afghanistan and "the war on (foreign) terrorism" to be worried about what for all appearances was a domestic terrorism case.

I don't know if the guy who's been fingered for the anthrax letters did it. I'm not entirely sure it's possible to know really. But I don't think it was a government plot to encourage the invasion of Iraq. Few governments are that efficient, and the Bush administration wasn't exactly what you would call, "competent".

The senate anthrax had to be weaponized in a bio-weapons lab. Here is an early article on how advanced it was.
http://www.usu.edu/science/unwrapped/files/uploads/1492_Science_anthrax.pdf

 

[nvidiot]

So? Which is more likely? Massive government conspiracy to use weaponised biological weapons against the press and legislature to panic the population into a war of invasion? OR disgruntled and mentally I'll employee of government lab goes nuts and starts attacking the institutions and individuals he thinks wronged him?

 

[MaGZ]

So? Which is more likely? Massive government conspiracy to use weaponised biological weapons against the press and legislature to panic the population into a war of invasion? OR disgruntled and mentally I'll employee of government lab goes nuts and starts attacking the institutions and individuals he thinks wronged him?

Some on the Left claim the anthrax was made in a secret weapons lab at Battelle Memorial Institute or Dugway Proving Ground. I think it is more likely to have came from Israel Institute for Biological Research in Ness Ziona.

Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control
http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/83cohen.pdf

 

[JihadJane]

So? Which is more likely? Massive government conspiracy to use weaponised biological weapons against the press and legislature to panic the population into a war of invasion? OR disgruntled and mentally I'll employee of government lab goes nuts and starts attacking the institutions and individuals he thinks wronged him?

Why would the "government conspiracy" have to be "massive"? Don't forget that the same government/intelligence matrix was capable of organizing massive invasions of foreign countries thousands of mile away.

What would be the logic guiding Bruce Ivins' choice of targets ("institutions and individuals he thinks wronged him" doesn't make any sense at all)?

 

[nvidiot]

Some on the Left claim the anthrax was made in a secret weapons lab at Battelle Memorial Institute or Dugway Proving Ground. I think it is more likely to have came from Israel Institute for Biological Research in Ness Ziona.

Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control
http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/83cohen.pdf

Could you perhaps have at least a stab at answering the question?

 

[nvidiot]

Why would the "government conspiracy" have to be "massive"? Don't forget that the same government/intelligence matrix was capable of organizing massive invasions of foreign countries thousands of mile away.

Did they do it secretly?

No, it was rather obvious when the US military mobilized for the Iraq invasion.

If you want to ascribe grand long game type scheming and murder on the part of the government to release anthrax, then by the very nature of such a broad and nefarious plot it would require more than one person. To make it "appear" to be the act of a single man whilst really being a part of an evil plot by teh NWOz would require a great many people to do effectively.

Secrets are hard to keep. Really hard. Really, really, really hard. And a plot like this, which makes absolutely no sense from the OPs description, would either require a substantial number of individual actors to accomplish, or just one with a grudge or a serious mental health problem. The middle ground is fairly desolate. If it's just one man, as it appears to have been, then it's not a government conspiracy to draw us into the Iraq war. If it is a government conspiracy, then we would have found the culprits through the sheer numbers of required conspirators involved through detective or intelligence work.

And if the intelligence communities from the rest of the world ever found such a plot? You really believe they wouldn't say anything, quietly or otherwise?

The world doesn't work like a bad CIA thriller. It works by human acts, and humans are, typically, small, petty, greedy, lying bastards. (Present company excepted ) Anyone willing to attack the media and the government simultaneously using a batch of anthrax supposedly easily traced to a single source, is either barking mad, or downright Machiavellian on a scale not seen before in the history of humankind.

What would be the logic guiding Bruce Ivins' choice of targets ("institutions and individuals he thinks wronged him" doesn't make any sense at all)?

Logic on the part of the attacker doesn't necessarily have to come into it. It's not an inherently rational choice to make. It would be relatively easy to come up with a twisted logic that justified the attacks in the mind of a single man with the right access.

I don't know the details or the reasons this man apparently did this, I don't think anyone really does. I havent followed the story since the early part of that decade. The illustration question was a simple example of what is more likely, and trying to get MaGZ to recognise that such conspiracies are much less likely than simple human frailty.

 

[MaGZ]

Why would the "government conspiracy" have to be "massive"? Don't forget that the same government/intelligence matrix was capable of organizing massive invasions of foreign countries thousands of mile away.

What would be the logic guiding Bruce Ivins' choice of targets ("institutions and individuals he thinks wronged him" doesn't make any sense at all)?

The FBI has failed to explain why Ivins would have sent killer anthrax to Senators Daschle and Leahey or picked the media letters to ABC CBS NBC and the National Enquire. At least they could have came up with a motive or theory of why Ivins sent the letters.

 

[MaGZ]

So? Which is more likely? Massive government conspiracy to use weaponised biological weapons against the press and legislature to panic the population into a war of invasion? OR disgruntled and mentally I'll employee of government lab goes nuts and starts attacking the institutions and individuals he thinks wronged him?

It is more likely Israel used a false flag operation and sent the anthrax to alarm the US with fear of weapons of mass destruction. The country widely believed to have WMDs at that time was Iraq. Israel engineered the US invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Sadam for her own national security reasons.

 

[MaGZ]

Did they do it secretly?

No, it was rather obvious when the US military mobilized for the Iraq invasion.

If you want to ascribe grand long game type scheming and murder on the part of the government to release anthrax, then by the very nature of such a broad and nefarious plot it would require more than one person. To make it "appear" to be the act of a single man whilst really being a part of an evil plot by teh NWOz would require a great many people to do effectively.

Secrets are hard to keep. Really hard. Really, really, really hard. And a plot like this, which makes absolutely no sense from the OPs description, would either require a substantial number of individual actors to accomplish, or just one with a grudge or a serious mental health problem. The middle ground is fairly desolate. If it's just one man, as it appears to have been, then it's not a government conspiracy to draw us into the Iraq war. If it is a government conspiracy, then we would have found the culprits through the sheer numbers of required conspirators involved through detective or intelligence work.

And if the intelligence communities from the rest of the world ever found such a plot? You really believe they wouldn't say anything, quietly or otherwise?

The world doesn't work like a bad CIA thriller. It works by human acts, and humans are, typically, small, petty, greedy, lying bastards. (Present company excepted ) Anyone willing to attack the media and the government simultaneously using a batch of anthrax supposedly easily traced to a single source, is either barking mad, or downright Machiavellian on a scale not seen before in the history of humankind.



Logic on the part of the attacker doesn't necessarily have to come into it. It's not an inherently rational choice to make. It would be relatively easy to come up with a twisted logic that justified the attacks in the mind of a single man with the right access.

I don't know the details or the reasons this man apparently did this, I don't think anyone really does. I havent followed the story since the early part of that decade. The illustration question was a simple example of what is more likely, and trying to get MaGZ to recognise that such conspiracies are much less likely than simple human frailty.

I hope I have made it clear to you that I do not thing our government was responsible for the anthrax attacks or had prior knowledge of it. I accuse Israel and the Mossad only.

 

[JihadJane]

Did they do it secretly?

The invasion and occupation no doubt involved plenty of secret activity, yes.

No, it was rather obvious when the US military mobilized for the Iraq invasion.

If you want to ascribe grand long game type scheming and murder on the part of the government to release anthrax, then by the very nature of such a broad and nefarious plot it would require more than one person.

And "more than one person" equals "massive"?

To make it "appear" to be the act of a single man whilst really being a part of an evil plot by teh NWOz would require a great many people to do effectively.

Writing in baby internet language and spouting cartoon stereotypes doesn't necessarily make your argument correct.

Someone else was the chosen "fall-guy" before Ivins, suggesting that the "evil plot" was done on the hoof. Why should changing the direction in which the finger was pointing reguire a "great many people"? Police around the world regularly frame people for crimes they didn't commit. It's not rocket science.

Secrets are hard to keep. Really hard. Really, really, really hard.

Framing the innocent for crimes they didn't commit is frequently successful.

And a plot like this, which makes absolutely no sense from the OPs description, would either require a substantial number of individual actors to accomplish,

How many and what would be their roles?

Fear-mongering and warmongering go together like a horse and carriage.

or just one with a grudge or a serious mental health problem. The middle ground is fairly desolate. If it's just one man, as it appears to have been, then it's not a government conspiracy to draw us into the Iraq war.

The Bush administration were more ambitious than that. The "War on Terror" has been able to sustain more than one war.

If it is a government conspiracy, then we would have found the culprits through the sheer numbers of required conspirators involved through detective or intelligence work.

You haven't demonstrated that a large number of conspirators would be required.

Please list all the undiscovered government conspiracies that you know about!

And if the intelligence communities from the rest of the world ever found such a plot? You really believe they wouldn't say anything, quietly or otherwise?

If?

The world doesn't work like a bad CIA thriller. It works by human acts, and humans are, typically, small, petty, greedy, lying bastards. (Present company excepted ) Anyone willing to attack the media and the government simultaneously using a batch of anthrax supposedly easily traced to a single source, is either barking mad, or downright Machiavellian on a scale not seen before in the history of humankind.

Read some history!

I look forward to the post in which you justify stating that the alleged government conspiracy would have had to have been "massive".

Logic on the part of the attacker doesn't necessarily have to come into it.

Except that you already offered a logical explanation in your previous post ("attacking the institutions and individuals he thinks wronged him"). Why, if we accept your suggested explanation as feasible, would he have chosen the particular targets that he did?

It's not an inherently rational choice to make. It would be relatively easy to come up with a twisted logic that justified the attacks in the mind of a single man with the right access.

I don't know the details or the reasons this man apparently did this, I don't think anyone really does. I havent followed the story since the early part of that decade. The illustration question was a simple example of what is more likely, and trying to get MaGZ to recognise that such conspiracies are much less likely than simple human frailty.

Just groundless speculation, then, on your part.

 

[MaGZ]

Someone else was the chosen "fall-guy" before Ivins, suggesting that the "evil plot" was done on the hoof.

The first "fall-guy" was Dr. Steven Hatfill who I believe was framed by the Mossad as early as 1997. Here are some articles indicating the anthrax hoaxes were staged when Hatfill was in the area.

The Message in the Anthrax
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/messageanthrax.html

The Hunting of Steven J. Hatfill
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/huntinghatfill.html

B'nai B'brith anthrax hoax 1997
http://anthraxmuseum.tripod.com/theanthraxmysterymuseumtm/id39.html​

FBI: Letter in Daschle's office a hoax
http://articles.cnn.com/2002-01-03/...e-building-daschle-powdery-substance?_s=PM:US

 

[Psi Baba]

WIRED magazine had a fairly thorough article on this topic back in March.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/03/ff_anthrax_fbi/

Most of the scientists whose work was used to build the case concur that the evidence was woefully incomplete and potentially misleading. A big problem with the investigation was that the FBI's method of collecting samples of anthrax from all of the researchers who possessed cultures was based entirely on trust.

 

[catsmate]

Some on the Left claim the anthrax was made in a secret weapons lab at Battelle Memorial Institute or Dugway Proving Ground. I think it is more likely to have came from Israel Institute for Biological Research in Ness Ziona.

Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control
http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/83cohen.pdf

Is that supposed to prove something?

 

[Mr.D]

Is that supposed to prove something?

It shows that if you start with the conclusion, finding "evidence" is easy.



ETA: Why is this thread in "History, Literature and the Arts?"