Mostly about the "liberal-media" and the Democratic leadership in the Congress.
Letters with anthrax have been sent to the headquarters of news media, including The New York Times. Today, a letter (field-tested positive for anthrax) was intercepted before it reached it's target: Daschle.
I think its clear that the far-right is behind these attacks. Not simple because of their target, but the method of delivery: if they wanted to just kill Americans, they'd pump it into the air. No, they're targeting specific people.
It's time the right-wing stop bitching about "tree-huggers" on the left and start looking for the killers on the far of their own party.
Discuss.
I think I should add something. I am not saying that George W. Bush is whispering orders to his henchmen to carry out these orders, anymore then Newt Gingrich gave McVeigh the "go-ahead" to blow up Oklahoma City. However, I do think that the anthrax attacks are the results of efforts by American whackos, and I do think these "homegrown terrorists" would most likely be aligned along the far-right.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
*runs away from the thread before it blows*
The Daschle letter was postmarked Trenton, NJ.
And if it was a "Right-wing Conspiracy," why was some of the Fox News(the channel that liberals like to call conservatively biased) staff targeted as well?
A Right-wing conspiracy this isn't.
Besides, the far-right (read: McVeigh) isn't exactly known for being rational. My point is that this is more likely the result of "homegrown" terrorists. The far-right (and I do mean the far right) would be the most logical suspects.
And because people seem to think I'm accusing Omega, Rob, JeffRaven, and George W. Bush of actively participating in this ... let me say it one more time.
THE FAR RIGHT. THE FAR FAR FAR RIGHT. You know, like the same whacko militia McVeigh seemed to be apart of. I'd be very surprised if they haven't done anything to take advantage of Sept. 11th.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
Kardde, whether you think Iraq would simply have released it in aresol form doesn't make much difference. Homegrown terrorists simply would not have the capacity to engineer anthrax like this. It had to be someone with major resources, and no accountability. That's pretty well Iraq. There could be any number of reasond that they didn't use aresol dispersion. Just 'cause it was in a Clancy book...
They're targeting specific people. If they just want to kill Americans, why wouldn't they just send some suicide bio-chemers into shopping malls and release it? My only guess is that they're trying to keep exposure limited.
I wouldn't discount that the far-far-militia-whacko right (similar to the far-far-I'm going to live/chain myself in a tree-left) would work with a foreign power (read: Iraq, or ... [insert]). I'm labeling them Internal Suspect #1, given their past track record (McVeigh).
JeffR, I am NOT (believe it or not) saying Rush Limbaugh is in his living room every night putting anthrax in an envelope and muttering "I'll show you all..."
1) Out of four major newspapers in Toronto, only one is on the left, and that is the Centre-Left.
2) I think CTV (Canada's equivalent of CBS) is owned by a private operator who is affiliated with the right wing.
And secondly, Tom Daschle is simply the majority leader after that guy changed affiliations to Democrat. Had it been the Republicans with the majority, I'd be expecting Trent Lott to receive that same letter.
However, it takes resources to make things like anthrax... a sophisticated laboratory.
In the U.S., the unsupervised sophisticated laboratories are pretty much all on college campuses... which aren't exactly hotbeds for rightist extremists (though they frequently are for leftists.)
And then, of course, there is the possibility that the same letters could be getting sent to conservatives, but that they never actually reach them, because conservatives are a bit more diligent about matters relating to personal security. (that's half-joking.)
quote:
1) Out of four major newspapers in Toronto, only one is on the left, and that is the Centre-Left.
As you folks up there are so fond of pointing out, Canada is not the United States.
[ October 16, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
quote:
which aren't exactly hotbeds for rightist extremists
Rightest extremists don't go to college?
And as for non-extremist conservatives... while they may GO to college, they aren't exactly made to feel welcome. Especially not the social conservative, Fundie ones. Unsuprising. Being a social liberal conservative(in other words, non-Christian and in favor of guarantees of equal rights and access to all people), I had a different experience.
It doesn't help that the only diehard conservative I knew in college was a total jerk.
They did a tour in Vietnam before going to college, and apparently "liberated" a 30-caliber machine gun from the Army and mounted it on their dorm window ... with belts of real ammunition. Imagine if that happened these days? Kooky.
Just a few days ago, someone printed a "Letter to the Editor" on using religion to help one heal over the tragedy of Sept. 11. The next day, someone had written a venomous response replying how our newspaper was printing 'propaganda' and it was so horrible that they printed the letter to the editor, and that the Spectrum should have immediately found an alternative view to counter the 'propaganda.' The letter clearly stated that the fact the letter advocating religion as a way of healing "was an opinion piece is irrelevant," and that an alternative view should have been provided.
It's really not fun to have my beliefs and ideals assaulted on a daily basis.
quote:
It's really not fun to have my beliefs and ideals assaulted on a daily basis.
Then you know how I feel everytime I see "God Bless America" on a billboard, bumper-sticker, or what-not. And, trust me, they've been EVERYWHERE for the past month.
Not to mention driving past churches which have billboards saying "Jesus Will Save You", "God Bless America" (even more), and "Church Saves Your Soul."
And then there's those damn "not a sermon, just a though" Church ads on the radio, and on the news when the anchors advertise for masses to grieve for the events of September 11th.
And on top of that, the Towson Towerlight's "Letters to the Editor" section is full of "let's bomb the shit out of the Arabs!" op-eds. Three weeks ago, some students assaulted other students protesting for peace. The next issue of The Towerlight was full of letters blasting the protestors.
So, you know what, you don't like you beliefs being challenged? That's what the U.S. is about. Deal with it, everyone else does.
Now you know how I feel regarding my skirmishes with Omega. 
quote:
As a conservative, I have to deal with leftist ideas on a daily basis. Several of my professors, especially in history, actually tried to apply Karl Marx's theories in class. While I couldn't stomach one class, I had to get through another because it was required.
What, learning about Marx shouldn't be part of a history class?
So, you know what, you don't like you beliefs being challenged? That's what the U.S. is about.
He said assaulted, not challenged. Having your beliefs challenged is like what Benson described: seeing something you don't agree with. Having your beliefs assualted, however, is what Jeff's describing: an outright attack. Of course, he might be overstating just a bit, based solely on what he described, but there might be other incidents that he didn't mention. Either way, an assault and a challenge are not the same.
Which he wasn't... I mean, I think 99% of the people on this planet would disagree with Marx today, but at the time of his writing his opinion was rather well-recieved by a good chunk of the population. Marx wasn't by any means stupid. Just most of us have a severe difference of opinion when it comes to his conclusions about society.
[ October 18, 2001: Message edited by: The_Tom ]
Being exposed to Marxist Communism is an "assault", but being exposed to religion is a "challenge"? Explain.
When I was working on my history degree, I noticed people that disagreed vehemently with various professor's point of view about Marx. I remember talking with a friend about one professor's assertion that Marx was a historian. My firend was quite upset about that idea. While I understood where he as coming from I could also understand where the point of view of the professor.
Social historians tend to think that Marx's historical economic dialectic playes a large role in culture and the development of society in the post agricultural revolution stages and during the industrial revolution. Many see the same "conflict of opposing forces" even now.
Social motivation adds new and different textual ways to "read" hisotry. Whatever you think about Marx or his economic theory, he is very important in the development of professional history and the challenging of the narritive.
One thing that I don't think students get about history is the "theory" behind it all. Marx presented an idea, a theory if you will, and historians have expanded on it, meshed it with other theory and come up with what many think is a important way to explain past events and social motivations.
My idea was that Marx was an advocate more so than a historian. He had a valid point to make about the historical economic dialectic, but moved far beyond objectivity while relating of his ideas.
Remember though that no historian can be truly objective. I tend to think it wrong to demand of a professor what you are not willing to give of yourself. Most people I ran into that had problems with what professors were talking about, walked into the classroom as an ideolog, put up a intellectual wall and refused to really listen or think.
However, understanding theory, take deconstruction for example, is not easy to make sence of or to put into perspective if one wants a pure narrative historical point of view.
Honestly, when one gets to university, historians think that your ready to digest more complex historical thought, and can seem to be and can actually be rather arrogant about how they present history.
The point is, that if one wants to be an educated person, one must read and understand points of view that one does not agree with.
And if you your a professional social historian who ignores Marx, postmodern thought, or theory in general, then you are a pretty poor historian. And yet, if you are a professional historian who can't sit down one on one with a student and talk with them about Marx, postmodern ideas or theory, then you are a pretty poor historian.
And it's the student has to engage the teacher on some intellectual and literate level. Read Marx, postmodern thought or other theory and then go talk about them.
University is about personal challenge and growth and the does not come about by singularly seeking the like minded. Avoiding ideas that you don't agree with only gets one so far in this world. Finding ideas that you don't agree with, ones that challenge you and motivate you to honest introspection can help you grow the most.
[ October 19, 2001: Message edited by: Jay the Obscure ]
In a report published Saturday, a senior official was quoted in the Post as saying that "everything seems to lean toward a domestic source. Nothing seems to fit with an overseas terrorist type operation."
Authorities are considering many possibilities, the Post reports. They include associates of right-wing hate groups and people in the U.S. sympathetic to Islamic extremist causes.
Officials say none of the 60 to 80 threat reports gathered every day by U.S. intelligence agencies has connected the letters containing anthrax spores to al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. They say evidence from the spore samples provides no links to a foreign government or lab.
One senior official told the Post that while authorities believe al Qaeda members are planning more serious attacks, "nobody believes the anthrax scare we are going through is" the next wave of terrorism.
"There is no intelligence on it and it does not fit any (al Qaeda) pattern," the official is quoted as saying.
Only one clue appears to point to foreign terrorist involvement, an official said. FBI behavioral scientists have concluded that whoever wrote the three letters delivered to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-South Dakota, NBC News and the New York Post didn't learn English as a first language.
But several officials said the letter-writer could have lived in the United States for a while. And, official of the Simon Wiesenthal Center told the Post that the anti-Israel comments in the letters and the statements of suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden are supported and mouthed by U.S. extremist groups.
Also, officials say, they are concerned that bioterrorism is moving public attention away from the threat posed by bin Laden and al Qaeda.