Ed’s lackadaisical approach to biosecurity — and his “the clock ticked 5 p.m. so I’m outta here” approach to true crime analysis —
Ed’s lackadaisical approach to biosecurity also extends to the threat posed by salafi-jihadists.
“Do I look like I’m negotiating?”
Your comments are starting to get pretty creepy. You're reminding me once again of what was said about you in another thread:
Nothing personal...but you sound a little bit on the obsessive side, and not completely coherent. Are you surprised that people might ask to have you banned? Besides the obvious trespass of registering under a new name after being banned, you have the sound of someone who might drive halfway across the country to find someone who offended you in a post.
The difference, Ed, is I address the merits of your argument whereas you make ad hominem attacks.
It is you who has a “bogey man” view of Al Qaeda:
You write:
“Al Qaeda terrorists are vicious, dedicated killers who look for maximum damage and maximum impact.
You don’t pause to study the raging debate over tactics and the killing of innocents discussed in FISA and NSA wiretaps — or the prohibition against killing women and children with a poison.
You argue:
“Clearly, the terrorist was warning the recipients that the powder in the letters was dangerous and to act accordingly. That’s certainly not something the Al Qaeda would be likely to do.”
When I quote Al-Timimi, 15 feet from Ed’s expert, on what the hadiths say about the conduct of warfare, you dismiss it as esoteric trivia not worthy of your attention.
You ask:
“And why use the Ames strain of anthrax?” ignoring that the CIA experts like Michael Scheuer have explained that Al Qaeda perceives a duty to use the weaopns of their enemy.
You write: “The evidence almost certainly indicates that the terrorists were not Al Qaeda.”
Yet you have remained entirely ignorant of the relevant evidence by not informing yourself about the Salafi-Jihadists, their motivations, and their tactics.
But then you advance your profile of the perpetrator:
” 8. The terrorist probably watches Bill O’Reilly on the Fox News Channel.”
You continues:
” 13. The terrorist probably has a bumper sticker on his car that reads something like “Clean Up The Environment! Kill a Liberal!”
You continue:
“15. The terrorist may be divorced.
16. The terrorist may have a small child and visitation
rights with the child.
17. The terrorist may have used his child to address the
envelopes and to write the letters.
18. The terrorist’s child is probably home schooled.”
What utter and total uniformed amateurish crock.
Instead, the correct profile would have been someone in current contact with the people who have said — and in fact — moving forward with plans to use weaponized anthrax against US targets. And so the task for the CIA and FBI was to identify that person.
They immediately did and then undertook through investigation to identify what affiliates might have processed and/or mailed the anthrax.
The reason you don’t address the merits, Ed, is you don’t know the merits and are not informed enough to credibly address the true crime matter. If it doesn’t fit your preconceptions from December 2001, you have no interest in exploring it. That’s cognitive rigidity.
If you were a government analyst and you demonstrated this sort of truncated analysis, you should have been fired 5 years ago.