Posted on 02/11/2003 7:37:08 AM PST by yonif
Accumulated evidence, albeit mostly circumstantial, is nonethless sufficient to implicate Iraq in the wave of Anthrax incidents in America in the aftermath of the September 11 terror attacks, according to former IDF intelligence officer Dr. Danny Shoham.
Mystery still surrounds the affair of letters containing the deadly biological warfare agent that were sent to various addresses in the US over a more than two-month period shortly after the suicide attacks on New York and Washington.
Shoham, a senior researcher at Bar Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, believes that the proximity of the two events is no coincidence and that both were perpetrated by al-Qaida and sponsored by Iraq.
This thesis, published in the latest edition of the authoratitive "International Journal of Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence," is based on reported links between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida in Sudan in the early 1990s.
The international terrorist organization's leader Osama bin Laden was reported to have found a temporary safe haven in Sudan at a time that coinicded with reports that significant portions of Iraq's non-conventional weapons assets had also been moved there for "safe-keeping."
"They (bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence) found several common denominators, including inflicting damage and harm on the US and Israel through a variety of means of terror," said Shoham.
"These strong bonds intensified towards the end of the 1990's and reached a peak in the attacks against New York and Washington and the distribution of the Anthrax letters.
"The preparations for both these acts of sabotage were far too meticulous and required such a great deal of complex planning and real-time intelligence that they could not have been conducted by a terrorist organization.
"The resources needed for such operations, including installations for the process of manufacturing Anthrax powder, point to the involvement of a State that sponsors terrorism," he said.
Regarding Iraq being behind the Anthrax letters, Shoham contends that the culmulative evidence is sufficient to form just that conclusion despite its circumstantial nature. This concept could equally apply to findings presented to the UN Security Council last week by Secretary of State Colin Powell to prove the existence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that it is not disarming.
"The Anthrax evidence relates to four categories the earlier conduct by Iraq of non-conventional preparations and operations, Iraqi activities concerned with Anthrax as a biological warfare agent and the relationship of Iraq to the affair of the Anthrax letters," said Shoham.
"In each of these categories there is a critical mass of circumstantial evidence the integration of which is superior to the defense of reasonable doubt.
"In the first category it is known that in the 1980's Iraqi intelligence established a security network for researching and producing non-conventional weapons and made preparations for conducting biological and chemical terrorism. "In terms of operations, it is also known that these agents have been used, for example against the Kurds and against political opponents of the regime of Saddam Hussein. The Iraqis put nerve agents in the food supplies of fugitive Kurds, as well as in the the shells fired at them.
"Investigations into the abortive attack against the Twin Towers in 1993, when explosives as well as cyanide precursors were used, found that this was Iraqi sponsored.
"Regarding the third category, in the extremely diversified range of biological warfare agents developed by the Iraqis since the 1980's, Anthrax was considered in their conception to be the most important for military and sabotage operations."
Shoham said the fact that Iraq has stockpiled Anthrax, has not hesitated to use non-conventional weapons in the past and has an established a network for perpetration bio-chemical terrorism, coupled with its reputed links to al-Qaida, leads to the conclusion it was involved in the Anthrax letters affair.
"A comprehensive analysis of all the relevant information negates the still considered possibility that the operation was a purely American domestic affair," he said.
"Installations, not just a one or two room laboratory, are needed to produce the kind of Anthrax powder that was used in these cases.
"The chances that such installations existed in America but have not been discovered until this day are slim. Similarly, the chances that they were discovered but the information has been kept under wraps and has not been unearthed by the press are also slim."
Shoham contends that in the grey world of intelligence gathering and analysis where verifiable facts are hard to come by, it is often the case that accumulated circumstantial evidence has to suffice.
"Any analytical context that is not merely technical but relies on the power of the mind, ultimately reaches a point where evidence, even if only circumstantial, generally accumulates to a certain level of a critical mass, thus producing a solid conclusion," he says.
"This point is both conceivable and pragmatic. Its validity is both intrinsic and objective, stemming from an inherent plausability. Occasionally, the resulting conclusion is inadequate to propel the practical moves strategic or political which are regarded as it corollaries.
"This may be inevitable due to the very fact that the evidence is circumstantial, but that does not impair the validity even for those conclusions considered to be inferential assessments.
Unavoidably, intelligence analysts often face such challenges."
Asked why the alleged Iraqi links to the Anthrax letters had not been highlighted by the Americans and used to further justify the use of force to disarm Saddam and his regime, Shoham said the fact it had been accepted for publication in a highly reputable American journal did not necessarily mean it was accepted by the US authorities.
"They might, however, have come to this same conclusion but to only reveal the information now would be an admission of failure on the part of the investigators so they might be refraining from publicly dealing with the issue at this stage," Shoham added.
I'll bet Hatfill is happy to hear this. < /sarcasm>
Makes sense to me!
Why do you assume the perpetrators of the anthrax attacks INTENDED to kill few people with it? The most likely reason is a miscalculation. The perps wanted to bring down American government, military, financial institutions, and media all in one fell swoope. The fact that the first known letter went to an outfit called American Media is telling. Other letters went to Brokaw and Rather, two famous U.S. media personalities. One may have also gone to Jennings, since a child who visited ABC got sick. But the source was never determined.
As for Daschle and Leahy, to anyone unfamiliar with our system of government, in the months prior to 9/11 Daschle would have seemed like the guy in charge of the whole Congress. Leahy was also all over the tube during that time being interviewed about judicial appointments. So he could easily have seemed more important than he was (or is).
The hijackings were intended to take out easily identifiable financial, military and government targets. The flight that came down in Pennsylvania is believed to have been intended for the White House or the Capitol. It is also believed that other hijackers were in the air that day, but didn't act before air traffic was shut down nationwide.
There are no easily identifiable ABC-CBS-NBC targets that could be taken out from the air. But the anthrax could do it (or so the perps thought). Plus, it had the added benefit of serving as a backup operation if any one hijacking attempt didn't go according to plan.
Although they did succeed in slaughtering over 3000 people, shutting down our air traffic, government, and financial institutions, and rocking the country back on its heels for a short while, luck actually wasn't entirely with them. The twin towers and Pentagon attrocities killed far fewer people than what might have been the case a little later in the day, or if the towers came down faster, or, in the case of the Pentagon plane, if it had hit more squarely into the heart of the building. The Pennsylvania plane did not hit its intended target. And the anthrax attacks sowed lots of fear, but killed few.
Well, actually, it seems to take more brains than most on the Left appear to have.
Seems to me the other way round. If they know Saddam is behind the anthrax, why would they want to join America in a war against Saddam? That would be like sticking little targets to their heads: "Hit me, I need to take millions dead!"
But I still believe there is a chance that the mailings to Daschle and Leahy were studied. The instructions the terrorists received may well have been "(to get attention) attack the American media, along with the Democrats (to deflect the attention from us)".
Of course, there would be some poetic justice in Daschle's getting a packet just because the media gave him a lot of face time...and he came across as an a**hole.
Anthrax - Al Qaeda theory - commentary to date in support
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/798048/posts#25
The reason Daschle and Leahy were targeted was because of their positions and control of certain appropriations.
This is extremely misleading.
The virulent Ames was modified to make it non-pathogenic.
It is this non-virulent Ames which has been distributed fairly widely.
The virulent Ames is known to exist in perhaps fewer than 6 labs.
Certainly not everywhere in the world.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.