Israel responsible for the anthrax attacks

[Rich M]

So stockpile is the wrong word - So they have a live production facility - again, for help with the production of vaccines/treatments etc. So? Within those redefined terms, what of it?

 

[MaGZ]

So stockpile is the wrong word - So they have a live production facility - again, for help with the production of vaccines/treatments etc. So? Within those redefined terms, what of it?

There were two basic grades of anthrax material sent. The anthrax material that looked like ‘Purinia dog chow’ was sent to the New York media and caused only skin infections. The Senate anthrax was weaponized and if inhaled could cause death. It looked like a fine white powder.

2001 anthrax attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

The Anthrax Mystery: Solved
http://www.anthraxattacks.net/

 

[Legalduck]

I am totally convinced Israel was responsible for the anthrax attacks. I cannot see any other possible scenario. No American scientist could have brought home weaponized anthrax since the US bio-weapons program ended in 1972.

This is inaccurate. The Biological and Toxic Weapons Treaty of 1972 (signed by the USA, UK, and USSR; went into effect in 1975) only forbids the warfare use of bio/chem weapons. It specifically did not ban "defensive" bio/chem programs. What is a defensive program you ask? The parties to the treaty were allowed to experiment and develop bio weapons to learn how to combat them. The assumption was that some enemies( specifically countries that did not sign on to the treaty) would continue develop bio weapons, so the parties had to be prepared.

The text of the treaty can be found here:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsp/biologic.html

Article I allows for compounds to be maintained for protective purposes. The US bio-chem warfare program did not just disappear in 1975.

 

[Architect]

MaGZ

Obviously you're too busy to sort out holidays, what with all the racist protests and distributing anti-semetic literature, so to help you:

www.enjoyengland.com

I personally think you'll be so taken with Europe that you'll spend most of your time at this beauty spot:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lastrefuge.co.uk/images/html/aerials_UK_regions_south-west/devon/images/awuk310.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lastrefuge.co.uk/images/html/aerials_UK_regions_south-west/devon/pages/awuk310.htm&h=406&w=430&sz=58&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=goHNZPTB_qZHgM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=126&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddartmoor%2Bprison%26gbv%3D2%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den

Trust me.

I can dig out alternative destinations, for example Austria or Germany if you would prefer. Or how about here:

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?i...mp&start=40&gbv=2&ndsp=20&svnum=10&hl=en&sa=N

Just let me know - happy to help!

 

[twinstead]

MaGZ from what I see, you have the absolute, rock-solid, unshakable conviction that only a true ideologue can have when his belief is driven by ideology rather than any evidence that a rational person would consider compelling.

That coupled with your inability to see that makes you in my book simply another extremist, one of so many from all sides if the ideological aisle, to be ignored.

Good luck with that whole blaming your and all the world's troubles on the Jews thing.

 

[MaGZ]

This is inaccurate. The Biological and Toxic Weapons Treaty of 1972 (signed by the USA, UK, and USSR; went into effect in 1975) only forbids the warfare use of bio/chem weapons. It specifically did not ban "defensive" bio/chem programs. What is a defensive program you ask? The parties to the treaty were allowed to experiment and develop bio weapons to learn how to combat them. The assumption was that some enemies( specifically countries that did not sign on to the treaty) would continue develop bio weapons, so the parties had to be prepared.

The text of the treaty can be found here:
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hsp/biologic.html

Article I allows for compounds to be maintained for protective purposes. The US bio-chem warfare program did not just disappear in 1975.

OK
I will agree elements of bio-weapons are allowed under the treaty in order to develop countermeasures.

Israel did not sign the treaty.

 

[Thunder]

Hey Magz- where is that evidence linking the attack anthrax to anthrax made from Israeli labs? without it your story is pure bs.

 

[Legalduck]

Its not just that elements of bio weapons are allowed. Defensive programs can make extremely virulent forms of virus and bacteria. They do this because they assume that the opposistion is doing so. You're correct that Israel was not a signatory country. That means nothing. There were only three parties as I noted before (USA, UK, and USSR). Israel is on equal footing to the other 100+ countries that did not sign.

Also, the USSR, though a signatory, promptly ignored the terms. IIRC, not only did they continue with an offensive program, they tripled the the budget.

EDIT: to correct spelling

 

[beachnut]

OK
I will agree elements of bio-weapons are allowed under the treaty in order to develop countermeasures.

Israel did not sign the treaty.

Are you still using the web sites where racists bigoted nut cases go for bias information?

Your ignorance and your racism, disguised as legitimate debate, are showing through.

 

[MaGZ]

double post

 

[MaGZ]

Its not just that elements of bio weapons are allowed. Defensive programs can make extremely virulent forms of virus and bacteria. They do this because they assume that the opposistion is doing so. You're correct that Israel was not a signatory country. That means nothing. There were only three parties as I noted before (USA, UK, and USSR). Israel is on equal footing to the other 100+ countries that did not sign.

Also, the USSR, though a signatory, promptly ignored the terms. IIRC, not only did they continue with an offensive program, they tripled the the budget.

EDIT: to correct spelling

If you do a little more research I think you would find several countries have signed the treaty including Sadam’s Iraq.
Israel makes bio-weapons at her facility in Ness Ziona.

From:
The Anthrax Mystery: Solved
http://www.anthraxattacks.net/the-anthrax-mystery-solved.htm#more-5

Israel’s bio-weapons facilities are located at the Israel Institute of Biological Research (IIBR) in Ness Ziona (also Nes Ziona, Nes Tona) a few miles southeast of Tel Aviv. In 1952 the IIBR consisted of a single building hidden in an orange grove. Today, the IIBR has grown into a massive 14-acre compound with several hundred employees surrounded by high walls and electronic sensors. What goes on behind those high walls is something Israel would prefer to be kept secret.

Dutch journalist Karel Knip has researched the IIBR and came up with some interesting findings. Knip began by going through medical literature he found on the Internet. Specifically, he focused on the papers of 140 scientists affiliated with IIBR over the last five decades. With the help of experts on chemical and biological weapons, Knip developed an overview of the various programs that exist at IIBR. Knip found IIBR research began in the 1950s involving plague, typhus, and rabies. Dr. Avner Cohen discusses Knip’s findings in his paper and states, “… a significant number of studies at IIBR focused on anti-livestock agents, following the path of other national BW [bio-weapons] programs at the time.” ‘Anti-livestock agents’ is Cohen’s cryptic reference to Israel’s anthrax programs.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Speculation isn't proof, and establishing a motive to go with your speculation does not lend validity to your speculation. That's circular reasoning.

But, MaGZ, you've done far more speculation about Israel's motive than even their means, which is even worse.

You have no ground to stand on. Come back when you have something more than veiled hatred... from any source.

 

[Legalduck]

originally, it was only the three signatory countries. The others signed on to a later modified version.

You asserted that the US does not have a bioweapons program. This is incorrect. When the 1972 treaty was brought up, you said Israel was not a member. I pointed out there are many non-members, and even parties to the treaty violated it. Therefore, being treaty member or not is irrelevant. You've only mentioned that Iraq was a signer. None of this supports your position that you have a "smoking gun" of Israel's involvement.

Please provide concrete evidence of Israel's involvement. The mere existance of a program and treaty membership is speculative evidence. Many countries fit that description.

 

[Mr.D]

I am totally convinced Israel was responsible for the anthrax attacks. I cannot see any other possible scenario.

If you have an equally plausible scenario then I would like to hear it.

Bolding mine.

Thank you MaGZ for confirming; I provided a plausible alternative scenario and I will now even give you a possible motive; His cat told him to do it. Is it equally plausible? It doesn't have to be to counter your assertation that all other scenarios are impossible.

That your conclusion is so unshakable is strong evidence of an emotional conclusion rather than a logical one, so as I said in my previous post, I'm moving elsewhere. Others more knowlegable about the topic can point out the many other fallacies in your argument.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

The bottom line with MaGZ...

Bolding mine.

Thank you MaGZ for confirming; I provided a plausible alternative scenario and I will now even give you a possible motive; His cat told him to do it. Is it equally plausible? It doesn't have to be to counter your assertation that all other scenarios are impossible.

That your conclusion is so unshakable is strong evidence of an emotional conclusion rather than a logical one, so as I said in my previous post, I'm moving elsewhere. Others more knowledgeable about the topic can point out the many other fallacies in your argument.

Is simple...he hates the Jews. So the facts of this case or any other case are irrelevant. He hates Jews, he thinks they are the evil plotters behind all of humanity's ills, so they HAVE to be hurling anthrax at America.

And if they were, I must say, they didn't do much of a job of it.

 

[twinstead]

I'm trying desperately to either accept MaGZ's posts as a misguided attempt as a layman to describe the world around him, or the work of a true idiot.

I'm leaning toward 'true idiot'.

 

[MaGZ]

originally, it was only the three signatory countries. The others signed on to a later modified version.

You asserted that the US does not have a bioweapons program. This is incorrect. When the 1972 treaty was brought up, you said Israel was not a member. I pointed out there are many non-members, and even parties to the treaty violated it. Therefore, being treaty member or not is irrelevant. You've only mentioned that Iraq was a signer. None of this supports your position that you have a "smoking gun" of Israel's involvement.

Please provide concrete evidence of Israel's involvement. The mere existance of a program and treaty membership is speculative evidence. Many countries fit that description.

Please take a look at this article. I feel it makes a good case for Israeli responsibility in the anthrax attacks. If you think it does not, then please point out the errors or weak points in the article.

The first half of the article presents the background of the anthrax attacks. The second half–in my opinion–shows Israel had the means, motive, and opportunity to have launched the attacks.

The Anthrax Mystery: Solved
http://www.anthraxattacks.net/

 

[twinstead]

Please take a look at this article. I feel it makes a good case for Israeli responsibility in the anthrax attacks. If you think it does not, then please point out the errors or weak points in the article.

If you were any kind of investigator, you would have already picked out any errors or weak points, and been prepared to defend them.

It appears that you accept with no questions asked whatever websites like that tell you; if indeed you were as critical of them as you are of websites and people that you disagree with you would come across as much more credible.

But no, you choose to accept racist sites as the gospel truth.

Good luck with that.

 

[a_unique_person]

Please take a look at this article. I feel it makes a good case for Israeli responsibility in the anthrax attacks. If you think it does not, then please point out the errors or weak points in the article.

The first half of the article presents the background of the anthrax attacks. The second half–in my opinion–shows Israel had the means, motive, and opportunity to have launched the attacks.

The Anthrax Mystery: Solved
http://www.anthraxattacks.net/

However, the mailing of the anthrax letters shows a degree of media savvy that would be unusual for foreign Islamic terrorists. The persons who sent the letters knew which media outlets would have the greatest influence on the public. Even today, with the advent of cable and satellite television, the three major television broadcast networks remain as the primary source of news for most Americans. The New York Post and the National Enquirer are tabloid papers and were likely chosen for their sensational headlines. Of all the papers in New York City, the New York Post would have screamed the loudest concerning the threat from Islamic terrorists. For Americans who don’t follow the news, the National Enquirer, with its presence at every checkout stand in America, would convey the message. The desired effect in choosing these media outlets was to alarm the public and to remind them these terrorists wanted to destroy both America and Israel.

Argument from incredulity. I think 9/11 demonstrated quite clearly what terrorists are capable of.

 

[MaGZ]

Argument from incredulity. I think 9/11 demonstrated quite clearly what terrorists are capable of.

I think that portion of the article demonstrates it would be unlikely foreign terrorists would know which media targets would be have the greatest impact upon the American psyche. Israelis and American Jews would know–especially since so many of them are part of the news media.