Maybe this is normal behavior for people trying to get USDA loans.
Who does she want to play her in the movie?
"I felt that he was trying to make the cultural leap from the country that he came from, with all the violence, as compared to the United States," she says. "I was attempting, in every manner I could, to help him make his relocation into our country as easy for him as I could make it."
Well, isn't that special?
Tonight on at RadioFR! June 6, 2002
9:00 p.m. - 11:00 p.m. EDT / 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. PST...
YO!
ANNA AND MERCURIA
DO THE "REYNOLDS (W)RAP"
(Well, you knew it had to happen sometime...!)
WITH SPECIAL GUEST
DAVID PALMQUIST
"THE KING OF CONSPIRACY"
Hence i find her story a little too 'outrageous.' Especially when you consider the number of kooks who would do anything for a spot of fame.
For example in Oklahoma they are looking for a guy who masqueraded as an 'army colonel' and went to the site of the bridge collapse, and he was actually talking to people and was captured on telly. There are a lot of people who would use national disasters for their own little nefarious plots, or maybe for simply greed, or probably just to get some attention and media spotlight.
Think of it: Why would Atta risk exposing himself through such actions? It just does not add up!
Actually after thinking it true i am prone to believe she lied! From the reports being given out on Atta one can assume he was intelligent, definitely intelligent enough not to go and apply for a federal loan that would require checks, threaten a federal officer with bodily harm, state his intentions and what group he belongs to, and even assert that certain monuments would be destroyed.
The probability of Atta being that aloof about secrecy, and of this lady being so plain dumb, is just not probable. The two occuring at the same time must have a probability approaching zero!
According to this woman, Atta essentially told her his entire plot not in so many words, including his relationship with Osama and Al-Qaeda.
I believe in the nastiness, but not the blabby mouth. Atta is not known to shoot his mouth off to anyone, let alone a woman. No way this happened the way she tells it.
On the other hand, it's known the terrorists were interested in crop dusters — either to spread anthrax or to use as kamikaze weapons. Check out this essay in Technology Review by Richard A. Muller, which explores the flying Molotov theory.
Huh? What did he mean by this? Wasn't Atta Egyptian? Does this mean he considered Palestine part of his "country"? Or might it mean that Atta was really Palestinian?
Some of you really jump on that "grudge against the government" and show us why you think it is so important - namely your own "grudge against the government" and its employees.
Makes me want to ask if you wait until the letter carrier is coming down the street before you let your doberman out for his morning run. You know who you are, so no need to respond to that.
Let's pass on beyond the slasher statements and get into the real importance of this particular article.
The loan evaluator's statement seems to have spurred an investigative thread that led the Fibbies to the conclusion that the Terrorists really were interested in crop sprayers as a possible weapon - maybe pumping out hundreds of gallons of anthrax on an unsuspecting city.
No doubt the Fibbies went looking for all that anthrax the Terrorists would have stored, but they didn't find it. Instead, they went looking for "other" and smaller anthrax stashes that might be vectored by a finding in any one of thousands of mailboxes in Central New Jersey. They didn't find it there either.
The Fibbies were then left with only two investigative threads. One was to find evidence that blamed Saddam Hussein. The other was to find someone that had nothing to do with the Middle-East. Interviews with Saddam are much more difficult than inventing the middle-aged white male, eh?!
It's quite obvious why the Fibbies told this lady to be quiet. It's equally obvious why they now let her speak. Just three days ago the Czechs were able to authenticate a meeting between Mr. Atta and Iraqi agents. What they were up to is a good question, but it is now the case that implicating the Terrorists in the anthrax attack also implicates Saddam Hussein. Of course, if Mr. Atta was going to spray this stuff from a crop duster, he still would have had to have had access to a large scale anthrax producer. Iraq is undoubtedly one such choice. But, was it the real choice?
Try this idea out. The Iraqis gave Atta a small quantity of anthrax to test on a victim of his choice. Unfortunately for him, he didn't get his USDA guaranteed loan for a crop duster, so he didn't test it and he didn't put in a larger order for a mass quantity of anthrax to be delivered at a future date. In the end he used the anthrax anyway.
Alternatively, Atta did get a large shipment of anthrax and it's still in storage somewhere in Florida. We will find it someday.
There are a number of other ways to look at this, but finding Mr. Atta involved in the anthrax attack does not absolve Iraq of responsibility in the matter. A rational analysis of the situation ties Iraq even that much closer to the problem.