Being a Dissident

Vaclav Havel:
"The dissident does not operate in the realm of genuine power at all. He is not seeking power. He has no desire for office and does not gather votes. He does not attempt to charm the public. He offers nothing and promises nothing. He can offer, if anything, only his own skin-and he offers it solely because he has no other way of affirming the truth he stands for. His actions simply articulate his dignity as a citizen, regardless of the cost."

from this excellent article:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24941.htm


I think this description of being a dissident is a good way to describe being a "9/11 truther".

Well, so far you're living up to both parts, dude.

you beat me to it!
Kudos, sir.

I couldn't contain myself. This is more of Spooked's "hero complex".

He thinks he has divined the Truth and has a compulsion to spread the Word, and is extremely paranoid about the motives of deniers.

(And yes. before anyone asks, I am a semi-professional Internet psychologist: I accept PayPal donations for online diagnosis.)

I am a professional Internet psychic. I almost had a psychic girlfrind once, but she dumped me before we met.

I don't have PayPal, but you can "will" the money into my checking account.

Insufficient funs.

I should know better than to take a drink of anything before I read your posts...

And I JUST bought this new laptop....

just one, among many other things, of course

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

isn't it an important clue about false-flag terror in this country?

No, it was not "an important clue about false-flag terror in this country."

What else would you like to discuss about the anthrax case?

and you think he acted alone?

Maybe someone else was involved, but if so, we'll probably never know. That bugs the hell out of conspiracists, doesn't it? Funny thing about our criminal justice system: To accuse people of crimes, you need evidence that will stand up in court.

According to everyone with an informed opinion in the case, Ivins couple not have weaponized the anthrax. That means the FBI's theory of the case is wrong. Full stop. The FBI commissioned tests, run by a lab of their choosing, which found that the silicon the anthrax was coated with could not have been present purely as the result of contamination. In other words, the silicon was there because someone who knew how to put it there, PUT it there. Ivins, by all accounts, did not know how to do that, nor was the equipment needed to do that available at Ft. Detrick.

Second, to 'accuse' people of crimes, you only need a willingness to follow an agenda. That agenda can be justice-seeking or criminal. Was Stephen Hatfill 'accused?' He was outright persecuted, just as Ivins was. Hatfill at least lived through it, and collected $5.8 million for the harassment.

Here's something you should know about our criminals justice system: law enforcement routinely - yes, routinely - behaves with malice aforethought in prosecuting suspects. That can result in nakedly illegal activity, and often does. I've posted this column a number of times on this site, but in case you missed it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/02/opinion/02moran.html

Ivins was dead before it even became necessary to 'accuse' him. His 'theripist', Jean Duley, is not somebody whose credibility one should rely on. Go and listen to the messages Ivins left for her, and tell me whether they are remotely threatening.

Perhaps you should read the final report, Bryan.

and no one seriously believes their explanation.

"...Ivins {could} not have weaponized the anthrax."

Not true, unless "everyone with an informed opinion" means everyone who agrees with your speculations. Many experts do not believe the anthrax was weaponized with silicon or silica, and believe that Ivins could have produced it in his lab at Ft. Detrick. Since the FBI was apparently never able to reverse-engineer exactly how the anthrax was processed, that's still an open question, which presumably will be addressed in the National Academy of Science review.

Our criminal justice system does, in fact, require that prosecutors have evidence before they can accuse anyone of anything, and malice is not at all the only reason that the evidence might not be valid, reliable or conclusive. But that's why we have trials. I've never heard any rational person try to claim that the system is perfect, but as imperfect as it is, I haven't heard any suggestions for a better method. It isn't feasible to have Bryan Sacks bring his infallible inductive reasoning to bear on every case. My point was that if someone else was involved, it appears that the FBI investigation has been unable to uncover the evidence of it and has come to a dead end with what they have now pointing at Ivins. Of course you prefer the sinister and malicious explanation for that. I don't claim to know the truth, but I'll still take evidence-based reasoning over any suggested replacements.

as usual.

That's a very strange statement.

MAYBE someone else was involved, but we'll NEVER know????

First of all, beyond any reasonable doubt, Ivins did not make the anthrax. Second of all, the FBI could have mounted a better investigation. It's not like we don't have a massive high-tech investigative unit known as the FBI.

As far as evidence and standing up in court-- yes, that's true. So good thing the FBI framed and defamed Ivins outside of court.

I find your attitude about this very curious.

As determined by whom, Spooked? You?

from wikipedia...

"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false. A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted truth as to be ludicrous. Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs, making rational debate an often futile task.

"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart, that you can't take part; you can't even passively take part, and you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus, and you've got to make it stop," Mario Savio said in 1964. "And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it, that unless you're free, the machine will be prevented from working at all."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Voh3I2h6PBo

and that's a great quote

No tanks.

very well stated.

Sid