Why do people forget or dismiss the Anthrax attacks

[Burgold]

I keep reading and re-reading that we have not been successfully attacked since September 11, 2001. This is false. Months after September 11, the U.S. Post Office was used to convey chemical weapons. These weapons infiltrated numerous offices including those of Congress. Congress buildings had to be evacuated and closed down. People died. Post Offices and sorting stations were closed for months. There have been other small incidents since then as well. Especially, if we include Embassies as part of the United States.

[Prosperity]

I keep reading and re-reading that we have not been successfully attacked since September 11, 2001. This is false. Months after September 11, the U.S. Post Office was used to convey chemical weapons. These weapons infiltrated numerous offices including those of Congress. Congress buildings had to be evacuated and closed down. People died. Post Offices and sorting stations were closed for months. There have been other small incidents since then as well. Especially, if we include Embassies as part of the United States.

I did forget, but did anyone actually die? What I remember was that they were mostly hoaxes and not anthrax itself.

[Burgold]

There were a few people who actually did die, several postal workers, and I think even some low level workers in Congressional offices. They died in part, because it took some time to figure out what was making people sick and Anthrax attacks so quickly.

The point being, the plane attacks were not their only successful attacks, not their only attempts. It just bugs me that people re-write history in their own minds because they think it supports some point they want to make.

[Larry]

Actually, my brother told me some time ago about a tinfoil-hat theory about those attacks.

If you'll recall, the first target was a reporter for a tabloid newspaper in Florida, followed by one Congressman and one Senator.

Some folks were rather puzzled at the target selection. The Congressman was a ranking Congressman, but he wasn't the Speaker. And the Senator wasn't the Pro Tem or the Majority Leader. And the reporter didn't work for a major newspaper, but a tabloid.

However, supposedlythe reporter had recently written an article describing some groups of Cuban-americans in Florida as terrorists. (And of claiming that they were receiving assistance under the table from the US military.)

And both the Senator and the Congressman had sponsored legislation within the previous year to normalise relations with Cuba.

According to my brother's tinfoil hat websites, they predicted that the US would never officially find the source of the anthrax, because they'd discovered that the source was the US, and supposedly the US had given this anthrax to the Cubans assuming it would be used over Cuba.

Not saying it's true, but I'd assume that the article about Cuba and the legislation about Cuba is an easily-checked fact. And he did predict, in advance, that the source of the anthrax would never be released and that the government would quietly decide that the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction on US soil just wasn't a priority, for no official reason.

When a theory is able to predict reality in advance it does lend a small bit of credability to the theory.

[Burgold]

Even if this is so, it would still be a terrorist attack intended to send a message. Just not Muslim Terrorists. The idea that the chemicals originated from Cuba also speaks to border control and why the border issue including yesterday's declarations shows an insincere attempt to protect us from foreign terrorists.

[Bang]

Didn't they find a guy, an American who was a strong suspect in the anthrax mailings?

I seem to remember they did, but I don't recall what came of it.

~Bang

[Burgold]

Actually, my tinfoil moment is with the East Coast Blackout. Remember, a few years ago where we had that perfect confluence of conditions that knocked out the power in ten states and even a part of Canada simultaneously. There's a part of me that thinks that for exactly the right circumstances to happen in exactly the right order in a way in which back-ups couldn't correct the problem... seems to have had human help. I'm probably wrong about this though. It was probably one of those things that were bound to happen one day and just happened then.

[Prosperity]

The fact that they never did find the guy is a bit disturbing, but compared to 9/11 it was a blip. We haven't had any suicide bombings (which has been a surprise to me) And only two occasions did a we have a Muslim person do what we consider terrorism. The crazy guy at the Airport shooting up the Israeli airline station and the guy that tried to run over people at UNC. Over all I think we all should be surprised at the insiginifigance of the attacks. I mean, Israel has a hard time stopping those things even though their intelligence services are allowed to do so many more things than ours are allowed. What this tells me is that our laws are sufficient at this point to stop terrorists or that terrorists just aren't that willing to attack us. The former makes more sense to me, and it is a relief. We don't have to give up more liberties to stay safe, and that should be a relief for all of us no matter which political side you ascribe to.

[Prosperity]

Didn't they find a guy, an American who was a strong suspect in the anthrax mailings?

I seem to remember they did, but I don't recall what came of it.

~Bang

Pretty sure he ended up being innocent, but I think his life was ruined in the end.

[Larry]

Even if this is so, it would still be a terrorist attack intended to send a message. Just not Muslim Terrorists. The idea that the chemicals originated from Cuba also speaks to border control and why the border issue including yesterday's declarations shows an insincere attempt to protect us from foreign terrorists.

I think you misunderstood the theory.

According to the theory, the source for the Anthrax was the US. Intentionally given to Cuban-Americans, so that they could attack Cuba with it. (And, supposedly, they actually used it to attack Americans who were trying to end the blocade of Cuba.)

[Skins24]

Wikipedia is your friend

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

[jpillian]

The fact that they never did find the guy is a bit disturbing, but compared to 9/11 it was a blip. We haven't had any suicide bombings (which has been a surprise to me) And only two occasions did a we have a Muslim person do what we consider terrorism. The crazy guy at the Airport shooting up the Israeli airline station and the guy that tried to run over people at UNC. Over all I think we all should be surprised at the insiginifigance of the attacks. I mean, Israel has a hard time stopping those things even though their intelligence services are allowed to do so many more things than ours are allowed. What this tells me is that our laws are sufficient at this point to stop terrorists or that terrorists just aren't that willing to attack us. The former makes more sense to me, and it is a relief. We don't have to give up more liberties to stay safe, and that should be a relief for all of us no matter which political side you ascribe to.

I've really been amazed that there have been no significant terrorist operations in the US since 9/11. Who really knows why. Could be that our intelligence and security forces are doing a bang up job. Kudos, if so.

However, for some reason I really highly doubt it. We are way too open a country to prevent a determined, intelligent enemy, from taking advantage of us.

The purpose of terrorism is to effect political change. In this case, AQ initially wanted us to disengage from the Islamic world and stop meddling in their affairs. More recently, they have stated that they believe the only way that will happen is if we are destroyed.

If AQ just wanted to effect political change by making the American public "hurt" just enough to shift our foreign policy, I'd think they would be using similar low intensity tactics that we are seeing in Iraq and Afghanistan: car bombs, suicde bombers, and the like. Those operations would not be neccessarily that much more difficult in the West in general, than they are in the Middle East. They certainly could not conduct them on the scale in which they are used in Iraq, but they wouldn't need to to gain the needed effects.

However, I believe the reason they haven't attacked us recently has more to do with AQ lulling the American public into a sense of security and complacency. This is the sort of permissive environment where WMDs could be smuggled in and deployed more easily, and when used -- they would be that much more effective.

I think it's highly probably that AQ is not settling for jabs in this fight, but is waiting for the opportunity for a knockout blow.

That's why I don't get my bloomers in too much of a bundle when I hear about increasingly aggressive security measures being implemented by this administration. If we don't stop AQ before they do what they want to do, these small invasions of privacy may -- out of necessity -- be replaced by a reactionary security state in the aftermath of a WMD attack.

In the end, my take is: "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." :2cents:

[Prosperity]

I hadn't considered that JP. It is definitely something worth thinking about.

[Predicto]

Pretty sure he ended up being innocent, but I think his life was ruined in the end.

Not so sure he was innocent so much as they couldn't legally prove he was guilty.