That other terrorist attack on U.S. soil

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The known knowns show that it had to have been someone with high military clearance and that the list of possible people would be very short. That's not conspiracy...that's fact. Why isn't that information brought forth?

but of course

Are you calling Dr. Rosenberg a liar?

Evidence gathered by Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and her colleagues reveals that the anthrax used in these attacks came from U.S. military stockpiles --and U.S. officials must have known this, almost from the beginning.

Dr. Rosenberg is a molecular biologist and research professor of environmental science at the State University of New York. For more than a decade she has been involved in the Federation of American Scientists' (FAS) Chemical and Biological Weapons Program, where she now serves as director.

http://www.revcom.us/a/v23/1140-1147/1145/anthrax%201145.htm

[HAL 9000 96]

Well Steven this would make her a horrible scientist!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Well Steven this would make her a horrible scientist!

She's overstepping her expertise and politicizing the evidence. Damn dirty scientists...she must be a liberal.

[HAL 9000 96]

Well Steven this would make her a horrible scientist!

She's overstepping her expertise and politicizing the evidence. Damn dirty scientists...she must be a liberal.

Not liberal... just a commie queen.

How she ended up in such a position is beyond me. Must have been those dirty Jedi Science mind tricks.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here's from the Weekly Standard....

Rosenberg is a research professor of environmental science at the State University of New York in Purchase. She also directs a working group on biological weapons verification for the Federation of American Scientists. And in a running "commentary" she has maintained on the federation's Internet site (www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm), Rosenberg argues that "multiple, blatant clues" left "seemingly on purpose" all make clear that "the perpetrator of the anthrax attacks is American." First off, the letters in which his spores were wrapped warned recipients to take an antibiotic, establishing that he "did not aim to kill"--as would be the goal of a genuine al Qaeda operative--but sought simply "to create public fear." Furthermore, according to Rosenberg, the spores themselves were prepared following the "optimal U.S. process" secretly perfected decades ago by Army biowarfare specialists at Ft. Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. "The anthrax in the letters," Rosenberg flatly asserts, "was either made and weaponized in recent years in a U.S. government or contractor lab for biodefense purposes, or by the perpetrator on his own." Either way, last fall's bacteriological terrorism against the United States was undoubtedly "an inside job."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...7vnjgh.asp?pg=2

[HAL 9000 96]

Hey but if only scientists are the only ones trained to clue in on those marks left behind then it must not be true.

[Ban Hammer 14,662]

I must disagree with Charles (big surprise there!). Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents. And even within permitted labs, not all associated with the lab are allowed to be near the bacterial hood.

who's talking about permits? it can be obtained all over the world. we have anthrax here in the usa, naturally occuring.

[HAL 9000 96]

I must disagree with Charles (big surprise there!). Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents. And even within permitted labs, not all associated with the lab are allowed to be near the bacterial hood.

who's talking about permits? it can be obtained all over the world. we have anthrax here in the usa, naturally occuring.

Not weaponized and not of the same optimized process that is described by Dr. Rosenberg. You can have anthrax on your skin right now and it not be an issue. Big difference there.

Permits apply to the use and handling of particular strains of the bacteria that are not ubiquitously available where the sun don't shine.

[Ban Hammer 14,662]

I must disagree with Charles (big surprise there!). Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents. And even within permitted labs, not all associated with the lab are allowed to be near the bacterial hood.

who's talking about permits? it can be obtained all over the world. we have anthrax here in the usa, naturally occuring.

Not weaponized and not of the same optimized process that is described by Dr. Rosenberg. You can have anthrax on your skin right now and it not be an issue. Big difference there.

Permits apply to the use and handling of particular strains of the bacteria that are not ubiquitously available where the sun don't shine.

yet you didn't specify you were talking about that particular strain were you? my earlier post to mawilson's question was in regards to anthrax in general, not a specific strain. nor did your subsequent posts appear any different in regards to a particular strain. so let's not do the bait and switch routine here k?

remember this:

"Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents."

again, i reinterate:

when it occurs naturally in the wild they can always obtain specimens themselves and culture them.

[Scott & Lai 12]

I actually thought this was going to be about the Beltway Snipers

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I actually thought this was going to be about the Beltway Snipers

Good point. That was another terrorist attack.

And something worth thinking about: if terrorists like the Beltway Snipers want to do something like that again, how is this war on terror going to prevent them from doing it?

[mawilson 2,133]

And something worth thinking about: if terrorists like the Beltway Snipers want to do something like that again, how is this war on terror going to prevent them from doing it?

Domestic terrorism is a matter for law enforcement, not the military.

[tmma 467]

And something worth thinking about: if terrorists like the Beltway Snipers want to do something like that again, how is this war on terror going to prevent them from doing it?

Domestic terrorism is a matter for law enforcement, not the military.

"...all enemies foreign and domestic...."

Domestic terrorism is a matter for federal, local and military agencies combined. It's just shameful that our agencies seem to be unable to work effectively together...IMO

[DeadPoolX 9]

And something worth thinking about: if terrorists like the Beltway Snipers want to do something like that again, how is this war on terror going to prevent them from doing it?

Domestic terrorism is a matter for law enforcement, not the military.

"...all enemies foreign and domestic...."

Domestic terrorism is a matter for federal, local and military agencies combined. It's just shameful that our agencies seem to be unable to work effectively together...IMO

I thought that was the entire point of creating The Department of Homeland Security in the first place: so that our law enforcement agencies could work more effectively together and respond to a crisis in a supposedly coordinated fashion. Of course, like most government-created plans, this thought probably looked great on paper, but when put into practice, it didn't do as well as initially hoped.

[HAL 9000 96]

I must disagree with Charles (big surprise there!). Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents. And even within permitted labs, not all associated with the lab are allowed to be near the bacterial hood.

who's talking about permits? it can be obtained all over the world. we have anthrax here in the usa, naturally occuring.

Not weaponized and not of the same optimized process that is described by Dr. Rosenberg. You can have anthrax on your skin right now and it not be an issue. Big difference there.

Permits apply to the use and handling of particular strains of the bacteria that are not ubiquitously available where the sun don't shine.

yet you didn't specify you were talking about that particular strain were you? my earlier post to mawilson's question was in regards to anthrax in general, not a specific strain. nor did your subsequent posts appear any different in regards to a particular strain. so let's not do the bait and switch routine here k?

remember this:

"Microbiology labs have it hard enough as it is obtaining institutional use permits for infeccious disease-causing agents."

again, i reinterate:

when it occurs naturally in the wild they can always obtain specimens themselves and culture them.

And I was writing about the general discussion topic in the thread. See?

The difference is that the particular strain used in the attacks was weaponized and nearly impossible to culture without established, controlled protocols from "nature."