Replies

Of course the letters were from Islamic terrorists, and they were almost certainly from a foreign country. The letters themselves spell it out about as plainly as humanly possible. Anyone who would believe otherwise is either an idiot or a virulent America-hating liberal.

Of course the letters were from Islamic terrorists, and they were almost certainly from a foreign country. The letters themselves spell it out about as plainly as humanly possible. Anyone who would believe otherwise is either an idiot or a virulent America-hating

If those letters were sent by Islamic terrorists, why did they send them--what did they expect those letters to accomplish?

"Of course the letters were from Islamic terrorists, and they were almost certainly from a foreign country. The letters themselves spell it out about as plainly as humanly possible. Anyone who would believe otherwise is either an idiot or a virulent America-hating liberal."

Interesting--I believe the anthrax was not sent by foreign terror groups for the exact same reason. The letters are too obvious--it's more like a case of misdirection. If you look at what happened, the letters caused a minimal loss of life, and caused a great deal of reaction on our part. We are now better prepared to deal with this type of attack than we were before. When was the last time Al Qaeda put safeguards on its attacks to REDUCE the loss of life? Never. The letters (a) told people it was anthrax, (b) told them what to take (admittedly, not the best choice, but still) (c) were taped to reduce the chance that spores would be released prior to being opened, (d) were folded with a "pharmaceutical fold," also to reduce chance of spores being released. The early warning, the prescriped antidote, and the precautions--none of these are Al Qaeda calling cards. They strike with an attempt to cause the most damage possible. The person who used this anthrax could have killed thousands, but did not. Why?