November 22, 2001

6:51 PM

In the house of anthrax."AMERICAN officials increasingly believe the anthrax attacks since September 11th were not carried out by people connected to al-Qaeda, but may have been the work of a lone American madman. To avert future attacks, though, perhaps they should look harder."
posted by Zool (22 comments total)

I am speechless and is this enough evidence along with all the other shit reporters are finding to convince people that maybe America has attacked Afgahnistan just in time before more western civilians got killed?
posted by Zool at 6:58 PM on November 22, 2001

I also am becoming convinced that al Qaeda had nothing to do with the anthrax attack. The fact that al Qaeda was looking into anthrax doesn't prove anything; there are a lot of people out there who have been doing that.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:03 PM on November 22, 2001

It was common knowledge, even before 9/11, that al Qaeda was playing with bios. What "other shit" are you referring to?
posted by jpoulos at 8:05 PM on November 22, 2001

I am speechless and is this enough evidence along with all the other shit reporters are finding to convince people that maybe America has attacked Afgahnistan just in time before more western civilians got killed?

This comment confuses me.
posted by rodii at 8:16 PM on November 22, 2001

Doesn't surprise me. How typical it is to blame someone else for our own problems.

And of course, being al-Qaeda and bin Laden the whipping boys du jour (a role shared through history by Saddam, Khomeini, Hitler, etc), linking anthrax to them was the most "logical" thing to do.

Didn't they said at first that the Oklahoma bombing was an act of Islamic extremists?
posted by betobeto at 8:38 PM on November 22, 2001

Who the fuck is "they," betobeto? That was remarkably useless.
posted by NortonDC at 8:55 PM on November 22, 2001

There was an interesting story back in May about heroin users dying from anthrax. It was also reported in the British press. The Italian press attributed the heroin specifically to Afghanistan.
posted by Real9 at 8:57 PM on November 22, 2001

...al-Qaeda and bin Laden the whipping boys du jour...

'whipping boy' is a phrase generally used to mean someone who's being unfairly accused. Robert Downey, Jr is a whipping boy Dr. Evil is a whipping boy. Osama bin Laden is a killer.

Let's just say for grins that al-Qaeda had nothing to do with the Anthrax attacks, which might very well be possible. There's still the outstanding matter of 4,000 human beings that got massacred.
posted by mikemonteiro at 9:02 PM on November 22, 2001

Indeed it was speculated, in the absence of damning evidence one way or another, that the Oklahoma City bombing was Islamic extremists. It just so happens that prior to 1995, pretty much all truck bombings -- at least against American targets -- were done by Islamic extremists, and they didn't stop using the technique in 1995, either.

I would have to say that I'm puzzled and deeply disappointed if what this reporter suggests is true.
posted by dhartung at 9:23 PM on November 22, 2001

'whipping boy' is a phrase generally used to mean someone who's being unfairly accused. Robert Downey, Jr is a whipping boy. Dr. Evil is a whipping boy.

Actually, Dr. Evil is really, super-duper, evil, chock full of bad intentions. Who else could come up with the Alan Parsons Project?

I will grant you Robert Downey Jr., though.
posted by signal at 10:48 PM on November 22, 2001

> I am speechless...

That's a pretty long sentence for someone who can't say anything. Incoherent, maybe, but not speechless.

betobeto:
>> Didn't they said at first that the Oklahoma bombing
>> was an act of Islamic extremists?
NortonDC:
> Who the fuck is "they," betobeto?

They the fuck are they, NortonDC [source].
posted by pracowity at 11:26 PM on November 22, 2001

It's not like this is 'new' news - not only has this been openly discussed in the British media for about seven weeks, but even US officials have been strongly hinting that a US source is most likely responsible. In fact, more than one report I read said that the weapons-grade anthrax used in some attacks probably derived from a US government store which has been holding anthrax since around 1969 when the US made its last official batch. Keep your own house in order, so to speak.
posted by skylar at 12:14 AM on November 23, 2001

All I can say is: Thank goodness the Northern Alliance are now in charge! With that huge change in Afghanistan, and the wave of goodwill that's swept the Middle East in recognition of the excellent work the US B52s are doing, I'm sure we'll all be a lot safer.

Imagine the shit we'd have been in otherwise. By destroying this highly developed research establishment we must have set their work back hundreds of years. They'll have to find somewhere else to build a whiteboard and store some gas masks, and with all the world against them, what chance is there of that?

I really wish I didn't have to move to S America next year. We seem to be making Europe/USA so much safer. I'll miss sharing in the rewards of all your/our hard work over the coming years.
posted by andrew cooke at 12:17 AM on November 23, 2001

Pracowity: so the media speculated 'for almost two days' that a truck-bombing of a government facility might have been done by radical Moslems? I'm shocked, shocked at their irresponsibility. They thought the first WTC bomb attack might have been done by radical Moslems, too! Won't they ever learn?

The source, of course, is FAIR, an oxymoron of an organization.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:18 AM on November 23, 2001

> I'm shocked, shocked at their irresponsibility.

I am, too. They should have known it would be a skinny white conservative nutcase who dislikes the government.
posted by pracowity at 12:45 AM on November 23, 2001

"The source, of course, is FAIR, an oxymoron of an organization." Slithy_Tove, shooting from the hip or can you point everyone to oxymoronic material to back this up?
posted by mmarcos at 4:02 AM on November 23, 2001

Real9: BBC follow-up May 23, 2000 Anthrax 'not cause of heroin deaths.'
posted by Carol Anne at 5:32 AM on November 23, 2001

mmarcos? Perhaps accusing me of shooting from the hip is shooting from the hip? Even the most partisan of leftists wouldn't accuse FAIR's website of being fair, would they? It's full of partisan barbs, loaded language, and lots of preaching to the faithful. They make no pretense of objectivity. They have a political agenda, which they frankly state on their index page.

Oh, for example take at look here at the kind of language they use in their headlines: "USA Today conceals key information"; "Media lovefest"; "Ignoring reality"; (i.e., the NYT's editorial take on the election differed from FAIR's.) This isn't the language of objective journalism criticism, it's highly colored, emotionally-loaded rhetoric.

And try to find on their site any criticism of media for spinning news so that it has a leftwing slant.

FAIR, like Accuracy in Media on the right, and other overtly political organizations, doesn't make a pretense of being objective or even-handed. They have a political agenda, and they're pushing it.

For an example of a site that does seem to make an effort to be 'fair', take a look at Spinsanity, a site that's been linked to on MiFi before.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 7:56 AM on November 23, 2001

Salon (favorite whipping boy of many) ran a piece the other day, available through Smirking Chimp, asking why the Justice Department does not seem very concerned about home grown terrorists, like this guy (NY Times link).
posted by ferris at 9:22 AM on November 23, 2001

The US's home-grown terrorists, in general, are 'right-wingers'. There are many who are motivated by left-wing politics, of course (animal liberation and radical environmentalism are examples) but these are far fewer, because of the Left Wing Flaw: The Left can't organise. (Conversely, the Right can't think.)

Addressing the problem of home-grown terrorism in the USA means addressing the ideological foundations of the Republican Party (errors of thought), and while you're at it, the arrogant methods of the Democratic Party to which they so drastically overreact (errors of organisation).

Sadly, this isn't going to happen. Ever read www.freerepublic.com? I will bet you $1 (US) that your anthrax-mailer is a regular contributor. I wish you all a bomb-free future, but I doubt it will happen.

Ash.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:41 PM on November 23, 2001

> the Left Wing Flaw: The Left can't organise.

There's more to it, though. There are the disadvantages of pitting the regular folk and principles of the left against the giant businesses and base grasping of the right. And the strongest believers on the left are often pacifists, while the right is stuffed with aggressive people who have no scruples about carrying and using deadly weapons to protect their hoards.

A left-wing nut will climb a tree and sit there for a year to protect the tree; a right-wing nut will shoot a guy who knocks on his door.
posted by pracowity at 12:29 AM on November 24, 2001

Other Shit!


Some people need to open their eyes.
posted by Zool at 8:37 PM on November 27, 2001