Rewritten (I previously clicked ‘publish’ instead of ‘save draught’!)
The Passionate Eye Anthrax War clip0of6 10:01
The Passionate Eye Anthrax War clip1of6
The Passionate Eye Anthrax War clip2of6
The Passionate Eye Anthrax War clip3of6
The Passionate Eye Anthrax War clip5of6
In case of possible discontinuity above, the links below should ‘patch it’:
Anthrax War part 6
Anthrax War part 7
Reading about the world, it’s history, economics, and struggles for power is I guess, kind of an obsession.
I’ve already ‘woken up’ (or is there another awakening to go through that I’m not yet aware of?). From time to time, in conversation with various people in various locations, I make reference to aspects of the stuff I’ve learned over the years i.e. the stuff I’ve come across (which in the mind of the rationally-paranoid, one might elaborrate: stuff that I have been allowed to learn) to probe their perceptions and hopefully throw out a few seeds to open a path of ‘awakening’ in them.
When discussing 9-11 with my father, I told him to keep an open mind. He said something like “I [he was refering to me] didn’t have an open mind on the issue, to which I said I had assessed the evidence and arrived at a conclusion. Overall w.r.t. 9-11 tt is one of the ultra rare occasions where I feel I ‘bettered’ my father in one of our late night conversations.
What is it achieving?
Perhaps very little, but I can be secure in the knowledge that I’ve done my bit to make people aware of the problem that we are facing.
I’m pretty savvy on dirty international politics, it’s getting to the point where often, ‘none can touch me’, although admittedly the occasional banana skin comes my way at times on issues where I think I have a strong handle, forcing a rethink.
I have moments where the mention of an individial brings their ’life-network’ (and all it’s baggage) into my mind. I’m not bragging, just telling it like how it is. I also have moments where things are blank, w.r.t fringe players, but this isn’t very often. The nett effect is that I feel I’m pretty sharp on noticing disinformation.
And so to the main focus of the post. It’s about a Canadian 2009 documentary: “The Passionate Eye – Anthrax War.” CBC (Canada)
I have doubts as to whether this documentary is legit or a work of disinformation. Those suspicions nagged on as I watched, there was no analysis of Bruce Ivins’s life to cement down a powder puff claim that Ivins’s was innocent.. Hatfill was exhonerated and the program made not mention of any other suspect.
The program was heading off into the direction that the spores weren’t from Fort Detrick (despite the Aimes strain being genetically specific to that laboratory). No mention of the biohazard inventory logs were mentioned either. The report developed what the investigation was ‘uncovering’ and suggested a bioweapons mafia but provided NO clear explanation of what this meant or who exactly this Mafia was, Instead lying on some quite loose information from some South African guy involved in bioengineering.
But wen Judith Miller, a willing Jezebel of a lady – a journalistic whore for the who pushed false rubbish through the press for the agenda of the Bush regime, then I jumped through the roof.
Like all good disinformation, truth is mixed with fiction to conceal the real story…
Extracts from the 2009 program: “The Passionate Eye – Anthrax War.” CBC (Canada)
Judith Miller, Investigative journalist:
I’m always worried about what we don’t know, in an area that is so inherently secret and secretive. And work that is so politically sensitive, um, potentially diplomatically explosive.
One week before 9/11, a puliter prize winning journalist, Judith miller and two NY times colleagues broke a front page story revealing the US had been weaponising anthrax as part of several secret programs.
One such program, project Jeffereson, involved the CAI and Battelle, a private natioanl sevurity lab that sought to enjineer a potent new anthrax weapon.
The Battelle lab was a contracter on project Jefferson and what they were trying to do was to, once again, figure out whether or not the Sovitest had combined two agents to make an anthrax that would resist our vaccine. And so for many years (laugh) they struggled to do this at this top secret labatory on the outskirts of Columbus Ohio.
Miller revealed that private contracters were capable of weaponising anthrax. But her report had been overshadowed by 9-11 and the anthrax attacks.
Ken Alibek the No 2 man in the Soviet biowarfare program before he defected to the west. Alibek went on to consult with the US government and assisted in the FBI’s [post 9-11] anthrax investigation.
He worries about the disappering line between bio defense, and bio offense.
The Unites states is spending a huge amount of money, billions and billions of dollars for so called “bio defense”, they say.
They create viruses like Spanish flu virus again. What would be the purpose for this? In some countries mind, it could look like say, like a work to create some new biological weapons.
Today, Alibek runs a botech company in Kiev in Ukraine. He is shadowed by a bodyguard.
Miller files two reports before 9-11 (the documentary only mentions one) where Miller broke a story about Anthrax. The documentary said two other journalists but the report from the NYT only yields Millers name (Perhaps Geff Gannon and his ‘brother’ were the other two – who knows)
When Is Bomb Not a Bomb? Germ Experts Confront U.S.
By JUDITH MILLER
Published: Wednesday, September 5, 2001
A former senior government lawyer yesterday vigorously disputed the Bush administration’s assertion that the global treaty banning biological weapons permits nations to test such arms for defensive purposes.
The lawyer, Mary Elizabeth Hoinkes, who was general counsel of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1994 to 1999, said such an interpretation of the 1972 treaty was a “gross misrepresentation” that “risks doing serious violence” to an accord the United States has long championed.
The New York Times reported yesterday that the United States had made and tested a model of a small Soviet-designed biological bomb as part of a series of secret research projects that officials said were aimed at defending against a growing threat of a germ attack.
The projects were begun under the Clinton administration and approved then by Pentagon and Central Intelligence officials, but Ms. Hoinkes said she did not know details of the project at the time. She refused to discuss it further.
The treaty bars nations from developing, acquiring or stockpiling biological weapons to be used for “hostile purposes or in armed conflict.” It permits experiments on microbes, provided that quantities are small and the purpose is defensive.
An administration official contended this week that the treaty also allows such experiments as long as the aim is “protective,” not hostile.
The distinction, Ms. Hoinkes said, was “too cute by half.”
She said the treaty was intended to bar even initial research on munitions that spread disease. The Bush administration’s interpretation — apparently shared by the Clinton adminstration — gives nations too much latitude to research offensive weapons in the name of defense, Ms. Hoinkes asserted. “You see a room full of people manufacturing bombs, and they say, `I’m only doing this for defensive purposes and I have no intention of ever doing it for real because my heart is pure,’ ” she said.
State Department and other administration officials describe Ms. Hoinkes as a leading expert on the germ weapons treaty. She joined the State Department in 1976 and began working in 1981 at the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, which was merged into the State Department in 1999.
She was not alone in her dismay.
Spurgeon M. Keeny Jr., a deputy director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency from 1977 to 1981, expressed similar concerns about the interpretation of the treaty and how such an assertion would be perceived abroad.
“In the eyes of the world, it’s going to look like we’ve been clandestinely violating the treaty,” said Mr. Keeny, who is president of the Arms Control Association, nonpartisan experts who support efforts to curb weapons of mass destruction.
Bill Harlow, spokesman for the Central Intelligence Agency, which tested the bomb model, said yesterday that the device was not a weapon because it lacked a fuse and did not contain dangerous germs. “Everything we did was in full compliance with the treaty,” he said.
The State Department declined to discuss the experts’ arguments. A spokesman said the administration had found that the research programs were “in compliance” with existing treaties and that appropriate legal “mechanisms” were in place to conduct such reviews.
An international conference to discuss how to strengthen the germ treaty is scheduled for November, and Mr. Keeny said the administration could expect accusations that Washington had ignored a treaty that most nations have signed.
“If any other country was found to be doing what we were supposedly doing, they would call it a dangerous violation of the treaty, and it surely appears to be a violation of the treaty in terms of common interpretation,” he added.
Victoria Clarke, a Pentagon spokeswoman, also confirmed yesterday that the Defense Department had drawn up plans to produce small amounts of genetically modified anthrax, a deadly toxin, but that the project had been “put on hold” earlier this year to make sure it did not violate international treaties and domestic laws.
Still, she said, the Pentagon intends to press ahead with the anthrax project. Pentagon officials have said that producing the stronger poison would aid in developing vaccines and other defenses.
By JUDITH MILLER
Published: September 4, 2001
- What I am suggesting is that Miller was told to pimp these stories out before 9-11 (an even Bush and gang knew was coming) so that if necessary, Millers story cold then be called upon to cast suggestions that private institutions were to blame for the anthrax attacks – that would be private institutions that the US government itself had ceeded licence to produce.
The documentary on one hand suggested Fort Detrick could not have manufactured this grade, yet they show and invertiew woth some guy who said they made it to that 1×10-6 m size. And to suggest a US Funded weapons lab was outperformed by a private company (who the US govt knew the identies of and would OBVIOUSLY have imposed strick seccurity conditions on them) to do something astounding as the near nano sized AIMES strain is just ridiculous.
I must say the Jewish element was flagged ( from which I will say an unscientific straw poll of the possibility of Zionist influence could be speculated upon – and that’s the only thing that should be infered by this statement!). And the program (although I had a bout of heavy-eye in the middle of it) didn’t mention Dr. Philip Zack a reported racist sporting Zionist attributes or the lady who tried to implace Hatfill with no evidence whatsoever – Ms. Rosenberg etc. etc
In summary, I believe this program has presented a piece of highly questionable work, peppering it with officials to legitimize it.
The program also completely failed to suggest WHO could have killed these men involved in the bioweapons field. And WHY the US govt was subcontracting out this weapons research too and WHO owned those companies.
Was Israyhell mentioned once in the documentary? I really don’t think so. South Africa was, but not that South Africa and the Zionist regime had worked closely on nuclear arms making coperation in the development of biological weapons a possibility also.