Reading the Anthrax Mailiings as Warning From Al Qaeda
Last month, approaching the Fifth Anniversary of the first death from the mailed anthrax letters, I obtained a journal article from an FBI Lab scientist that explained that: "a widely circulated misconception is that the spores were produced using additives and sophisticated engineering supposedly akin to military weapon production. ... The persistent credence given to this impression fosters erroneous preconceptions, which may misguide research and preparedness efforts and generally detract from the magnitude of hazards posed by simple spore preparations."
I passed the article on to journalists because it was important that the public understand that Ayman Zawahiri and his supporters had the means and know-how to make the anthrax mailed in the Fall of 2001.
Al Qaeda in Iraq recently has called for biological warfare against troops stationed in Iraq. The spokesman, Ayyub al-Masri, pointed to the continued imprisonment of Egyptian cleric Omar Abdel Rahman, who was found guilty in 1995 of conspiracy to attack US targets including the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. Al-Masri, according to the US military, has a history of terrorism dating back to Anwar Sadat's assassination in 1981, after which he joined a group in Egypt led by Osama bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.
It is important that the public now also come to understand, contrary to other widely circulated misconceptions in the press, that the tactic of lethal letters such as sent in the Fall of 2001 is not only the modus operandi of the militant islamists inspired by Ayman Zawahiri, it is their signature. The islamists sent letter bombs in late December 1996 from Alexandria, Egypt to newspaper offices in New York City and Washington, D.C. and people in symbolic positions. Musical Christmas cards apparently postmarked in Alexandria, Egypt contained improvised explosive devices. The letters were sent in connection with the earlier bombing of the World Trade Center and the imprisonment of the blind sheik, Sheik Abdel Rahman. The former leader of the Egyptian Al-Gamaa al-Islamiya ("Islamic Group"), Abdel-Rahman was also a spiritual leader of Al Qaeda. The letter bombs were sent in connection with the treatment of the Egyptian islamists imprisoned for the earlier attack on the WTC and a related plot. The purpose of the letter bombs - which resulted in minimal casualty - was to send a message. There was no claim of responsibility. There was no explanation. Once one had been received, the next ten, mailed on two separate dates, were easily collected. Sound familiar? Two bombs were also sent to Leavenworth, where a key WTC 1993 defendant was imprisoned, addressed to "Parole Officer." (The position does not exist). The FBI suspected the Vanguards of Conquest, a mysterious group led by Egyptian Islamic Jihad head Ayman Zawahiri. Zawahiri was head of Al Qaeda’s anthrax program codenamed “Zabadi” or “Curdled Milk.”
In the anthrax mailings, Dr. Zawahiri appears to have accomplished the attack on the US "structure" he intended. With the planes, Al Qaeda struck the US trade dominance (World Trade Center) and its military might (Pentagon). With the anthrax, some US-based supporter(s) of the goals of Zawahiri appear to have rounded out the field that they imagine provides support to Israel -- the legislative branch and media.
Although the genetic analysis of the anthrax strain could not pinpoint the exact origin of the Florida isolate, the study showed how whole-genome sequencing technology and computational methods can be a powerful approach for analyzing anthrax and other bacterial outbreaks. By analogy, while the anthrax perpetrator(s) may never be caught, the Amerithrax investigation no doubt has been conducted by FBI and Postal investigators who realize the next 9/11 may hinge on a correct reading of the anthrax mailings.
Ross E. Getman is an attorney in New York who maintains the website Al Qaeda, Anthrax and Ayman Zawahiri, http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
this lawyer doesn't do anything except compile work of others and then cherry picks the parts he thinks fits and then reaches a conclusion.
the problem with what he does is he is using information that may be fiction and then bases his conclusion on the fiction.
I would like to see how many cases he lost versus won. Probably 50% won versus lost. the same would apply to drawing conclusions from work done by others.
Posted by: Joe Camel | October 31, 2006 at 03:20 AM