Why would Terrorist put Anthrax in Heroin drugs?

I recently came across an unusual article out of the UK. The subject matter got me to thinking about why would terrorist do such a thing? While there are a multitude of plausible reasons, the mere fact that Anthrax was used indicates a military connection. When I started to ponder that reason I thought I would offer the thought for others to consider as well.

The link will provide the press release covering Anthrax in Heroin. Enjoy.

www.guardian.co.uk...

reply to post by MaxBlack


Question?
Why have you added the word terrorist to your thread title?
There is no mention of it in the online article.

Maybe anthrax was added to heroin in the hope and belief that its main users ---high-ranking politicians, lawyers, judges, etc. --- would die ?

I've been watching this on RSOE EDIS for some time now and I'm stumped as to why the source of the anthrax hasn't been located yet.

We cannot assume it to be a military source, only, as there must any number of labs that have anthrax, among other things. So what could be the case is someone who works in such a lab, and having access to anthrax, using it to kill off junkies. Perhaps this is more a loner operation of someone who has lost a loved one to Heroin use?

Reply to post by Dock9

There's an entire world of substances out there infinitely easierto come by to kill the user.

Using anthrax for that would be like taking the space shuttle to the corner store for a gallon of milk.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

The most likely case is the drug pusher is using something that has been contamination from a cutting agent. Drug pusher want to make more money from the amount of drugs they have so they use various substances to add to the heroin to make more of it also to keep it from being pure heroin as that alone would kill most people. Heroin is exported from primarily Afghanistan and it is believed they use bone meal from sheep which are known to be an anthrax source. The insurgents use the drug trade to finance their operations so I doubt they are intentionally contaminating the product which in turn kills the user and thus their profits.

Hiraba is the act of doing anything possible to kill infidels.
But anthrax is natural and comes from untanned animal hides.
So if it was smuggled in a camel carcass then it would have natural anthrax.
It's against Islamic tradition to deal with biologicals. They won't be martyred or get to heaven when handling such items.

There have been cases of anthrax linked to drumming workshops/classes.In such cases the untreated animal skins used on drums(like bongos/congos)are the cause spreading the disease to humans.

news.bbc.co.uk...

www.guardian.co.uk...

The Scottish heroin users may have caught anthrax from the way it was smuggled into Britain-possibly in something which contained animal skins IMO.
Thats what I thought when I first heard of this a few weeks back.

Hopefully the police/customs have also looked at this possibility,and may be able to trace and stop the source of this filth,and the anthrax.
That is if they believe its in their interest to stop it-they may feel that its a great motivator to stop people using heroin??
(Not that it would stop a hardened abuser of heroin IMO.)
I did wonder if this was a concerted effort by terrorists,but I think we would have seen a massive number of cases by now.
The extremists have said that its acceptable to sell heroin to the "infidels" in the past though,so who knows whats going on.

reply to post by MaxBlack


This is my supposition.

The "terrorists" in Afghanistan don't like herion and the production of opium.

The US and UK invaded Afghanistan and a year later the poppie production (and herion production) boomed.

It is because of the US's and UK's involvement in Afghanistan that the herion trade is booming there (and in the west). Hence why they (the terrorists) would want to kill (pun intented) the demand for it.

Edit: After reading the thread, the smuggled in an animal skin sounds like a more plausable scenario.

[edit on 9-2-2010 by Nutter]

Agreed, the animal skin scenario is far more likely. Thank you all for bringing my old and fading mind onto the same page.

It is however, an efficient delivery mechanism for a pathogenic agents.

I've been concerned about this for some time now.

But i'd have thought Cocaine would be the drug used as, as mentioned, the user demographic is richer people mainly, Heroin may be used by affluent people but Cocaine is more the substance of choice for those in media/entertainments, politics and corporations etc as much as use is rife and common in smaller amounts used in the greater numbers in more disadvantaged and marginalised communities due to low weight, low cost street deals in prevalence at that level of social use in recent times, as much as other drugs in powder/crystal form, in fact is more common at every social echelon in rising preference and prevalence to use than is Heroin however much Heroin is a significant drug of choice and addiction.
[But more affluent people are doubtlessly more mobile over greater areas in a short timescale so increased infection vector ranges per individual in scenario than localised and static disadvantaged and marginalised communities.]

Any number of biological agents could be cut into coke, with an infection delay, it would reach so many people before realised and those infected would already be spreading the agent during incubation period, it could in effect affect a few main cities and then infecting the general population if infection incubation period is say a week or so.

The consequences of such an attack would be utterly devestating!

Another reason why drug use in society should be accepted and tolerated and governments introduce regulated industry.

Prohibition in this context gives terrorism a very efficient delivery mechanism to vector pathogens.

If drugs used recreationally were accepted and regulated, it would essentially nullify that concern, at least make it very much more difficult to infect supplies if regulated and tested rather than having no controls whatsoever apart from criminalisation after product is in society as is the case now, once in society and being distributed, it's too late to prevent mass infection if terrorists do vector a pathogen using illicit drugs.

It's something i've been anticipating for a while now, Cocaine, or Heroin, sundry others, infected with a pathogen and infecting huge numbers of users and into general populations.

Very surprised it hasn't occurred on a massive scale yet, in fact.

But in the recent cases in Scotland and midlands England, i agree it's more likely a lone nutjob or small group of nutjobs cutting a small amount with Anthrax and tagging it into distribution or natural infection of a small amount in a batch of refined Heroin.

But i am still very concerned that powdered drugs still under prohibition will afford a terrorist group opportunity to vector pathogens with ease and simplicity and cause an outbreak in a population which once done will be hard to stop, just another reason why drugs in common recreational use should be regulated and not kept prohibited and in the hands of a black market where drugs can be so easily contaminated by terrorists, (Or of course, misanthropic psycho's whch abound in society, can and do contaminate recreational drugs to cause immediate harms, which can and does happen.).

It is a major risk factor in all cities and populations in the developed world but that risk is ignored by insistance in criminalising drug users and keeping drugs prohibited, and so completely out of the control and regulation of goverments because they will not accept need for change!

A regulated industry would not only give the wealth to the governments, an upturn in domestic economies translating to society and social improvements instead of the wealth going to organised criminals and terrorists, it would help keep the general populations safer as well, in the context of the above considerations to potentials.


Peace.



[edit on 9-2-2010 by DeltaPan]

reply to post by DeltaPan


Anthrax is indeed a deadly drug but it is not spread person to person and cannot be, at least from drug user to drug user or to those who come in contact. Anthrax is spread by spores and one must inhale the spores or inject the spores into ones own body. Anthrax is not able to spread from one infected person to another. And Crack which is coc aine is the cheapesr drug on the street now. H is a drug that users can and do become addicted to after the first use and is reasonably cheap. I think I may have misunderstood your post a bit...you are correct that it would be an easy way to introduce a viral infection to a large population by mixing it in with the street drugs that so many people use or even thru "legal" drugs that people buy off the internet.

www.bt.cdc.gov...

[edit on 2/9/2010 by DJMSN]

[edit on 2/9/2010 by DJMSN]

reply to post by MaxBlack


Perhaps it is because infidels are the largest consumer of illegal drugs in the world..

Then again, it might have more to do with why they infiltrated biodefense.

How ever, there are possably other more obvious reasons.

Originally posted by DeltaPan
i'd have thought Cocaine would be the drug used as, as mentioned, the user demographic is richer people mainly, Heroin may be used by affluent people but Cocaine is more the substance of choice for those in media/entertainments, politics and corporations etc as much as use is rife and common in smaller amounts used in the greater numbers in more disadvantaged and marginalised communities due to low weight, low cost street deals in prevalence at that level of social use in recent times, as much as other drugs in powder/crystal form, in fact is more common at every social echelon in rising preference and prevalence to use than is Heroin however much Heroin is a significant drug of choice and addiction.

[But more affluent people are doubtlessly more mobile over greater areas in a short timescale so increased infection vector ranges per individual in scenario than localised and static disadvantaged and marginalised communities.]

Any number of biological agents could be cut into coke, with an infection delay, it would reach so many people before realised and those infected would already be spreading the agent during incubation period, it could in effect affect a few main cities and then infecting the general population if infection incubation period is say a week or so.

The consequences of such an attack would be utterly devestating!

No offense but you might want to check your calendar. It's 2010 not 1990. Cocaine isn't just used by Hollywood execs these days. There's something called 'crack' coc aine that is endemic to the poorest urban ghettoes,

Heroin is still classier in some circles but there are more junkies worldwide than ever. Iran probably has a higher percentage than almost any country. You see they have this Muslim alcohol taboo.

As terrorist funding has also changed and instead of large bursaries through front Muslim charities revenues come from an incredible worldwide network of drug distribution stretching from Afghanistan into Latin America and elsewhere.

Not sure they'd want to give a bad rep to their bread and butter product line. Pissing off a million inner city blacks is not the way to go.

Originally posted by DJMSN
reply to post by DeltaPan

 

Anthrax is indeed a deadly drug but it is not spread person to person and cannot be,
[edit on 2/9/2010 by DJMSN]

I didn't say it was and i don't appreciate being dug out as if i am stupid, i've known about Anthrax for a long time now.

I was speaking hypothetically in relation to a wide range of pathogens which are.

I know my microbiology and such thank you and don't require being corrected by you, read it again.

The original post is in relation to Anthrax but i was speaking of powdered drugs being used as a delivery mechanism for an infectious pathogen.

A broader context of potential.

Originally posted by mmiichael

No offense but you might want to check your calendar. It's 2010 not 1990. Cocaine isn't just used by Hollywood execs these days. There's something called 'crack' coc aine that is endemic to the poorest urban ghettoes,

And after all that, what do you think i mean by...

as much as use is rife and common in smaller amounts used in the greater numbers in more disadvantaged and marginalised communities due to low weight, low cost street deals in prevalence at that level of social use in recent times, as much as other drugs in powder/crystal form, in fact is more common at every social echelon in rising preference and prevalence to use

Another just spouting off in counter to what i've said to sound clever.

Try again.

When you dig me out, do so for an actual reason, not just to make yourself sound clever at my expense.

About "No offense but you might want to check your calendar. It's 2010 not 1990.", What The Frack, are you assuming a working class man in his early 40's such as myself who has grown up with drugs doesn't fracking well know about these things.

I've seen the devastation Crack causes and got bitten by it myself courtesy of an ex G/F who was an addict but hadn't realised until i'd fallen for her, mid nineties, only for a few months out of a 14 month relationship until i ripped myself away from her and off it, after it caused me so much domestic, neural and spiritual damage, which is now healed but it took time, but i've seen how it devestates communities alrighty, in fact i come from a part of North London where the Crack problem first manifested in the late 80's when i never touched the crap but saw what it did to those who did, i lived in Tottenham in the late 80's early 90's and knew people in Hackney, Ladbroke Grove and All Saints road area etc etc etc and have seen how it has risen as a major domestic problem here in England, been there done that and seen many others who didn't deal with the addiction and went down the drain, seen how decent people turn into scumbags who steal from their own families and friends etc, decent people who just like a buzz and handled charly and other drugs fine but used Crack, got addicted then turned into crazed psycho's with delusions triggering intense aggressive and violent behaviours.
Have you, or do you profess simply from what you've read and seen on TV? I happen to come from impoverished/deprived communities in London under the Tories and i do know what i'm talking about, although quite different now, that's where i'm from.

You seem to make erroneous assumptions, that i don't know about drugs, nor terrorism, a product of your ego no doubt, you are so clued up and others are oh so stupid, ay.

Again, most problems with drugs are actually caused by prohibition and high cost to the consumer, this hypothetical potential regards using a drug to vector an infectious pathogen is simply one more problem which could arise from prohibition and is a very real possiblity and something i've considered since Cannabis was first being contaminated with glass, as i articulated on the Legalise Cannabis Alliance forum years ago now, i even articulated my concerns to the Comrade Home Secretary's office (UK) at the time that so little was being done about the contamination of Cannabis, it sends a clear signal to terrorists and misanthropic psycho's that drugs can be contaminated and refelxes by authorities are so slow if contamination was an infectious pathogen in powdered/crystalised drugs it could be utterly devastating by the time anybody mobilised to minimise an attack on such a vector and even small amounts of contaminations of drugs should be analysed by security as potential for dummy runs to test reflexes by police and authorities as are not beyond the realms of possibility by any means, again, in fact i'm suprised it hasn't happened on a large scale yet it is such a real potential.
And is why i say this is another major reason why recreationals in common use should be regulated not criminalised, criminalisation allows such a scenario to be effected, regulation and control, nullifies or makes such potentials much harder to realise, as things are, it's a real risk

Crack using demographies are static more than the more mobile Cocaine salt using demographies, so using a drug to vector an infectious pathogen would likely mean using Cocaine salts rather than retroengineered purified paste, aka Crack, or other powdered drugs taken nasally or injected, not combusted, combustion would be more likely to destroy a pathogen.

And btw, i hope you understand that the USA is not the only place on the planet and Islamic extremists are not the only terrorists, bit narrowband in your focus, don't know why somebody starred your comment mmiichael it just shows you've an ego which wants to try and dig somebody out for stupid reasons and seem to think Islamic extremists are the only terrorists and the USA is the only possible target.

In fact from what you wrote, doesn't sound like you've much of a clue about what threats are out there, quite simplistic actually it seems and definitely not in a position to presume to talk down to me as if you are clued up, you are stuck on one track which is no doubt because of racial prejudices you hold.

I don't think you understand much about terrorism really, nor objectives.



[edit on 10-2-2010 by DeltaPan]

Originally posted by DeltaPan

Crack using demographies are static more than the more mobile Cocaine salt using demographies, so using a drug to vector an infectious pathogen would likely mean using Cocaine salts rather than retroengineered purified paste, aka Crack, or other powdered drugs taken nasally or injected, not combusted, combustion would be more likely to destroy a pathogen.

And btw, i hope you understand that the USA is not the only place on the planet and Islamic extremists are not the only terrorists, bit narrowband in your focus, don't know why somebody starred your comment mmiichael it just shows you've an ego which wants to try and dig somebody out for stupid reasons and seem to think Islamic extremists are the only terrorists and the USA is the only possible target.

In fact from what you wrote, doesn't sound like you've much of a clue about what threats are out there, quite simplistic actually it seems and definitely not in a position to presume to talk down to me as if you are clued up, you are stuck on one track which is no doubt because of racial prejudices you hold.

I don't think you understand much about terrorism really, nor objectives.

First, I'm sorry for the dismissal of your comment on coke usage. I read you remark on coke as a designer drug and incorrectly assumed a dated view on where it's gone.

Last week I got a 3 day warning for a posting of I my 'knowledge' of the subject - so won't be going there. Ironically, I also lived off Ladbroke Road back when and am more than passingly familiar with the scene there and elsewhere.

My knowledge of the terrorist network is from a lot more than TV. I worked as a journalist for one thing - and in fact haven't looked at TV News in a decade.

The abuse of hard drugs is not confined to the West as many think.
Probably an even bigger problem in Iran where it is closer to source and much cheaper. Iran is said to have the the worst opium and heroin addiction problem in the world with an estimated 4 million regular users and half it's prison population inside for drug-related offenses.

I can't comment on the likelihood of infected drugs as a terrorism campaign. Sounds logical and may even be practiced. It would achieve a desired strain on medical infrastructures. Cynically I think many municipalities would see it as an alleviation of a problem.

Personally I've seen some fairly functional coke users who seem to be able to control their intake and wonder if it may be used by the terrorist camp to engineer the level of energy and commitment they desire.

M

[edit on 10-2-2010 by mmiichael]

reply to post by Silcone Synapse


It said a heroin addict in Germany was killed by it, too, which means it was contaminated before it got to Germany, let alone to the UK (unless it was imported into the UK first, then back to the continent, which sounds rather weird).

But to assume there is anything terrorism-related with this is retarded.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Personally I've seen some fairly functional coke users who seem to be able to control their intake and wonder if it may be used by the terrorist camp to engineer the level of energy and commitment they desire.

Undoubtably, they will do.

Stimulants are widely used among all camps, however much it's denied by allied forces they are issued for missions, i'd rather thought it was common knowledge.

See the Narcoleptic drug "Provigil" aka Modafinil, this is a stim' commonly used by police for instance. Frontline use of Amphetamines is common enough although i don't know about Cocaine, i am sure "marching powder" is used by enemy combatants who may find it easier to obtain than the designer stim's used by soldiers police forces etc, use of stimulants in warfare has always been the case throughout history.

Originally posted by mmiichael


First, I'm sorry for the dismissal of your comment on coke usage. I read you remark on coke as a designer drug and incorrectly assumed a dated view on where it's gone.

Last week I got a 3 day warning for a posting of I my 'knowledge' of the subject - so won't be going there. Ironically, I also lived off Ladbroke Road back when and am more than passingly familiar with the scene there and elsewhere.

Fair enough bruv.

I doubt terrorists vectoring a pathogen using common recreational drugs, either infectious or to immediately harm just the end users, would be from an Islamist group as they are not exactly that sort of mindset but one never knows, it's still a potential, but there's a lot more than them out there, they just predominate the media, they are at the front of most people's minds but Sections 5 & 6 and counterparts globally have a lot more than Islamic extremists to deal with and among those, there are misanthropic anarchists and hardline communist groups, (That's not being Mc Carthyist, i'm a socialist myself, talking about very extreme communist groups.) etc, who would attempt something like mentioned.

I've no basis for this comment, but i would hazard that many attempts have been made to contaminate drug shipments but it's been prevented or contained before much damage could be done.

No hard feelings, mind how ye go.

Peace.


[edit on 11-2-2010 by DeltaPan]

Originally posted by MaxBlack
I recently came across an unusual article out of the UK. The subject matter got me to thinking about why would terrorist do such a thing? While there are a multitude of plausible reasons, the mere fact that Anthrax was used indicates a military connection. When I started to ponder that reason I thought I would offer the thought for others to consider as well.

The link will provide the press release covering Anthrax in Heroin. Enjoy.

www.guardian.co.uk...

When you say 'terrorists' I'm assuming you mean UK/US government/agents? Then yes I can only think that they add it for the same reasons that they protect the makers of their drug, so that they can manipulate a weak stupid human. Then guess who has the answers as to how to fix this weak human addiction? Yes, correct and who will pay for their fix? Yes, correct again. See how this works?

Originally posted by DeltaPan
I doubt terrorists vectoring a pathogen using common recreational drugs, either infectious or to immediately harm just the end users, would be from an Islamist group as they are not exactly that sort of mindset but one never knows, it's still a potential, but there's a lot more than them out there, they just predominate the media, they are at the front of most people's minds but Sections 5 & 6 and counterparts globally have a lot more than Islamic extremists to deal with and among those, there are misanthropic anarchists and hardline communist groups, (That's not being Mc Carthyist, i'm a socialist myself, talking about very extreme communist groups.) etc, who would attempt something like mentioned.

I've no basis for this comment, but i would hazard that many attempts have been made to contaminate drug shipments but it's been prevented or contained before much damage could be done.

A clear picture of the illegal drug trade today is hard to assemble. Opium comes almost exclusively form Afghanistan, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan. Some of it is used for pharmaceuticals. But the rest goes worldwide for street consumption.

Various governments and agencies co-operate and benefit from this huge industry. Notably the Islamic extremists have been more active in the past few years. There has been much activity in South America based mainly in Paraguay which is essentially a lawless state, as well as Mexico.

An integration with the Coke trade apparently as the same distribution networks are used. There is a lot of ambivalence from the terrorist networks of using the drug trade as a way to further political goals. Devastating the policing and legal systems of Western countries particularly the US and Britain are considered desirable. But there is reticence, I gather, to infect the product line and harm the end users and reliability.

The trade must be one of the largest industries going with profit margins and tax avoidance making it enormously lucrative.

Many narco-states in both Asia and South America along with Mediterranean ports of call being key participants.

The War on Drugs is not so much about eliminating illegal drug use as it is controlling who benefits from it.