There's no mention of any potential motive for a "top government scientist" to start mailing anthrax.
Why did he (allegedly) do it? Why did it occur in the month following 9/11? What was his relation to the 9/11 terrorists [wikipedia.org]?
Bruce E. Ivins doesn't sound like a Muslim name. Did he have any friends or relatives in the Middle East? I'm disappointed that TFA doesn't address any of these questions. I wonder if they'll ever be answered.
There's no mention of any potential motive for a "top government scientist" to start mailing anthrax.
And yet all the suspects were top US government scientists.
Face it -- this terrorist attack came from a US citizen. Anthrax is hard to weaponize, and a US source was always the most likely origin.
The perpetrator probably had no relation to 9/11, or Iraq. In fact, his agenda may have been to increase domestic tensions to incite our invasion of Iraq. (Witness the spurious mention of bentonite, which was known to be an Iraqi addition to anthrax agents. It was not in the mailed anthrax, but plenty of news sources reported incorrectly that it was.) He might not have had any agenda; Ivins was obviously mentally ill.
No, sadly, I don't think these questions will ever be answered.
Obviously? How do you figure that? All we know is that a dude who was sane enough for the FBI to work with for many months is now dead. Suicide has not been proved, and even suicide does not prove mental illness. Guilt has not been proved, and neither was the man ever formally charged. There is very little we know about this incident, and it is irresponsible of you to claim that anything is 'obvious' at this juncture.
Read the article. He was going to a shrink for years, and admitted to thoughts of suicide. He died from an overdose of prescription medication. I think 'obviously mentally ill' is a valid supposition.
Whether he was guilty or not is another matter. That's why I used 'the perpetrator' in my post above.
Everybody, if they're being honest with themselves, has had "thoughts of suicide." It's human nature. When you're standing near the edge of the building, you think about what it would mean to jump. We're fascinated by death, and why shouldn't we be?
He was going to a shrink for years, and admitted to thoughts of suicide.
I personally take offense to this having a personal friend institutionalized during high school for expression something similar. I'd wager millions of Americans visit shrinks and/or have thoughts of suicide yet they don't seem to be in the business of killing other people or labeled as mentally ill.
I'd argue a suicidal person who actually visits a shrink is less likely to want to kill someone than a person who has anger problems and do
Read the article. He was going to a shrink for years, and admitted to thoughts of suicide. He died from an overdose of prescription medication. I think 'obviously mentally ill' is a valid supposition.
He worked in a biological weapons lab. How could he *not* have mental/emotional problems at some point?
Ivins was under treatment for depression, with suicidal tendencies, and had just been institutionalized; not done for folks who are merely sad. Serious talk of suicide with a therapist will get you right in the hospital.
Removed from the lab by cops and family and under a restraining order from a coworker. Beyond geeky/. behavior.
It is quite possible for someone highly depressed to continue functioning in technical professions ("I've heard").
He was already a suicide risk. Whether prompted by the possi
Did he have any friends or relatives in the Middle East?
Indeed he did - from TFA:
"Ivins, the son of a Princeton-educated pharmacist, was born and raised in Lebanon" ...though if you're going to be pedantic that should be...
"Ivins, the son of a Princeton-educated pharmacist, was born and raised in Lebanon, Ohio"
I remember reading some analytical piece back in Fall 01 speculating about the motive. It was saying that the source was most likely from the defense industry, and so whoever sent it may have been trying to show how vulnerable we are to chemical attacks. It may have been a desperate attempt to get the kind of chemical/biological defense measures in place the sender was trying to implement in other ways.
Pretty clearly demonstrated to have been added motivation for the political leaders of the day to endorse the patriot act, which is why they were targeted. Now which agency has had experience with drugs which will induce paranoid and suicidal behavioural patterns and supported the criminalisation of the general public as well the highly profitable privatisation of intelligence services.
Highly paid ex-agent consultants can suffer from very questionable morals and motivations and still have access to many
I think in regards to the anthrax, the Media was just stupid and unreliable (as normal), and the Government happily let them report every misconception and misunderstanding... perhaps to draw attention away from their own cluelessness.
Most of the time you're right. But in this special case, the one that Glenn Greenwald outlines, which involves those sources that confirm the Anthrax link to Iraq to ABC, someone lied. Either the Reporter who made up those sources, or the Sources themselves. It's hard to explain away this case with incompetence. I'd love to hear an explanation from ABC for that.
That "motive" is so patently false I am shocked anyone could possibly say that with a straight face. If he were "testing his vaccine," wouldn't he have to give the vaccine to his victims prior to infecting them?
Is there any indication that he vaccinated anyone?
One doesn't need to be Muslim to be a terrorist.
Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. The terrorists who assassinate doctors who perform abortions are Christians.
Wikipedia says Bruce E. Ivins was a Roman Catholic.
Terrorists can be any religion.
That's true, people miss that religion can be a cause, but more often than not, it's that the terrorist is a fucking prick who doesn't care about killing innocent people....and all religions have pricks as members.
Timothy McVeigh is what you'd call a right wing terrorist. He believed America was great and the federal government's expanding power was ruining America. He viewed the federal government, but not state and local governments, as evil. He has not ever claimed to be Christian or anarchist. He was a terrorist in that he targeted federal government buildings as a symbolic gesture.
Eric Rudolph is the abortion clinic bomber, and most certainly describes himself as Christian. His actions, of course, have been
Yeah, McVeigh was solely responsible for the truck bomb AND to two unexploded bombs found in the Murrah building. McVeigh was what is called a "patsy".
The deliberate killing of a head of state, an abortionist, the president of a multi-national corporation, or even the guy down the street isn't terrorism unless the true target of your attack is someone other than your victim.
Abortion doctors are targeted in part to scare other people away from providing abortions, so that should count as terrorism.
One doesn't need to be Muslim to be a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. The terrorists who assassinate doctors who perform abortions are Christians. Wikipedia says Bruce E. Ivins was a Roman Catholic. Terrorists can be any religion.
That may be true, but in this case that makes no sense at all. Letters were mailed with the anthrax indicating that Muslims were responsible for the anthrax attacks. Your argument is thus implying that a Christian made attacks to further supposedly Muslim goals while pretending to be a Muslim.
That makes absolutely no sense:
!) Christian carries out attacks while pretending to be a Muslim Terrorist 2) ?????? 3) ??????
Keep in mind that the anthrax letters were sent only to Democratic senators and news outlets
Given that this has been a headline for at least 12 hours now, I did some reading.
A motive that was given in this news account [sfgate.com] was that he was working on a vaccine for Anthrax and wanted to test it.
There was also some evidence that before the 2001 anthrax attack, he had conducted tests outside of normal work protocol. His attorney stated that he had been cooperating with the FBI for more than a year. There is also a report that he was forcibly removed from his job due to his becoming unstable.
A motive that was given in this news account
was that he was working on a vaccine for Anthrax and wanted to test it.
Yes, that is a motive if you are very very very stupid.
To test a vaccine, a fundamental concept requires that people be vaccinated. Unless this was some magical long-distance vaccine.
Now, some people might be dumb enough to think you can test a vaccine without using the vaccine to vaccinate people...but I'll wager they don't work for research labs developing vaccines.
How do you spell, TERRORIST? (Score:1)
Motive? (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no mention of any potential motive for a "top government scientist" to start mailing anthrax.
Why did he (allegedly) do it? Why did it occur in the month following 9/11? What was his relation to the 9/11 terrorists [wikipedia.org]?
Bruce E. Ivins doesn't sound like a Muslim name. Did he have any friends or relatives in the Middle East? I'm disappointed that TFA doesn't address any of these questions. I wonder if they'll ever be answered.
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no mention of any potential motive for a "top government scientist" to start mailing anthrax.
And yet all the suspects were top US government scientists.
Face it -- this terrorist attack came from a US citizen. Anthrax is hard to weaponize, and a US source was always the most likely origin.
The perpetrator probably had no relation to 9/11, or Iraq. In fact, his agenda may have been to increase domestic tensions to incite our invasion of Iraq. (Witness the spurious mention of bentonite, which was known to be an Iraqi addition to anthrax agents. It was not in the mailed anthrax, but plenty of news sources reported incorrectly that it was.) He might not have had any agenda; Ivins was obviously mentally ill.
No, sadly, I don't think these questions will ever be answered.
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ivins was obviously mentally ill.
Obviously? How do you figure that? All we know is that a dude who was sane enough for the FBI to work with for many months is now dead. Suicide has not been proved, and even suicide does not prove mental illness. Guilt has not been proved, and neither was the man ever formally charged. There is very little we know about this incident, and it is irresponsible of you to claim that anything is 'obvious' at this juncture.
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the article. He was going to a shrink for years, and admitted to thoughts of suicide. He died from an overdose of prescription medication. I think 'obviously mentally ill' is a valid supposition.
Whether he was guilty or not is another matter. That's why I used 'the perpetrator' in my post above.
Re: (Score:2)
Everybody, if they're being honest with themselves, has had "thoughts of suicide." It's human nature. When you're standing near the edge of the building, you think about what it would mean to jump. We're fascinated by death, and why shouldn't we be?
Re: (Score:2)
Whether he was guilty or not is another matter. That's why I used 'the perpetrator' in my post above.
I think you're confusing suspect with perpetrator. The perpetrator did the crime. The suspect is thought to be the perpetrator.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetrator [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
He was going to a shrink for years, and admitted to thoughts of suicide.
I personally take offense to this having a personal friend institutionalized during high school for expression something similar. I'd wager millions of Americans visit shrinks and/or have thoughts of suicide yet they don't seem to be in the business of killing other people or labeled as mentally ill.
I'd argue a suicidal person who actually visits a shrink is less likely to want to kill someone than a person who has anger problems and do
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article. He was going to a shrink for years, and admitted to thoughts of suicide. He died from an overdose of prescription medication. I think 'obviously mentally ill' is a valid supposition.
He worked in a biological weapons lab. How could he *not* have mental/emotional problems at some point?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is quite possible for someone highly depressed to continue functioning in technical professions ("I've heard").
He was already a suicide risk. Whether prompted by the possi
Re: (Score:1)
What kind of skilled scientist would end his own like by taking a massive dose of "Tylenol mixed with codeine". That's gotta be the worst way to go.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.suicide.methods [google.com]
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Funny)
Indeed he did - from TFA:
"Ivins, the son of a Princeton-educated pharmacist, was born and raised in Lebanon"
"Ivins, the son of a Princeton-educated pharmacist, was born and raised in Lebanon, Ohio"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty clearly demonstrated to have been added motivation for the political leaders of the day to endorse the patriot act, which is why they were targeted. Now which agency has had experience with drugs which will induce paranoid and suicidal behavioural patterns and supported the criminalisation of the general public as well the highly profitable privatisation of intelligence services.
Highly paid ex-agent consultants can suffer from very questionable morals and motivations and still have access to many
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think in regards to the anthrax, the Media was just stupid and unreliable (as normal), and the Government happily let them report every misconception and misunderstanding... perhaps to draw attention away from their own cluelessness.
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
That "motive" is so patently false I am shocked anyone could possibly say that with a straight face. If he were "testing his vaccine," wouldn't he have to give the vaccine to his victims prior to infecting them?
Is there any indication that he vaccinated anyone?
Re:Motive? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true, people miss that religion can be a cause, but more often than not, it's that the terrorist is a fucking prick who doesn't care about killing innocent people....and all religions have pricks as members.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
....and all religions have pricks as members.
Some more than others.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Timothy McVeigh is what you'd call a right wing terrorist. He believed America was great and the federal government's expanding power was ruining America. He viewed the federal government, but not state and local governments, as evil. He has not ever claimed to be Christian or anarchist. He was a terrorist in that he targeted federal government buildings as a symbolic gesture.
Eric Rudolph is the abortion clinic bomber, and most certainly describes himself as Christian. His actions, of course, have been
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
The deliberate killing of a head of state, an abortionist, the president of a multi-national corporation, or even the guy down the street isn't terrorism unless the true target of your attack is someone other than your victim.
Abortion doctors are targeted in part to scare other people away from providing abortions, so that should count as terrorism.
You gotta be kidding me (Score:2)
One doesn't need to be Muslim to be a terrorist. Timothy McVeigh was a Christian. The terrorists who assassinate doctors who perform abortions are Christians. Wikipedia says Bruce E. Ivins was a Roman Catholic. Terrorists can be any religion.
That may be true, but in this case that makes no sense at all. Letters were mailed with the anthrax indicating that Muslims were responsible for the anthrax attacks. Your argument is thus implying that a Christian made attacks to further supposedly Muslim goals while pretending to be a Muslim.
That makes absolutely no sense:
!) Christian carries out attacks while pretending to be a Muslim Terrorist
2) ??????
3) ??????
Keep in mind that the anthrax letters were sent only to Democratic senators and news outlets
Re: (Score:2)
2) religious polarization, increased hatred against non-christians
3) increased support for conservative christian politicians and institutions
now that wasn't that hard, was it.
Or maybe he just wanted the attention and excitement, being an anthrax expert but no one using it, even in times of "war".
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Given that this has been a headline for at least 12 hours now, I did some reading.
A motive that was given in this news account [sfgate.com]
was that he was working on a vaccine for Anthrax and wanted to test it.
There was also some evidence that before the 2001 anthrax attack, he had conducted tests outside of normal work protocol. His attorney stated that he had been cooperating with the FBI for more than a year. There is also a report that he was forcibly removed from his job due to his becoming unstable.
The impressio
Re: (Score:1)
A motive that was given in this news account [sfgate.com] was that he was working on a vaccine for Anthrax and wanted to test it.
Wasn't that the plot of Mission Impossible 2 (no, I can't seem to drink it off my mind). Is the government driven by TV and the movies?
Re: (Score:1)
A motive that was given in this news account was that he was working on a vaccine for Anthrax and wanted to test it.
Yes, that is a motive if you are very very very stupid.
To test a vaccine, a fundamental concept requires that people be vaccinated. Unless this was some magical long-distance vaccine.
Now, some people might be dumb enough to think you can test a vaccine without using the vaccine to vaccinate people...but I'll wager they don't work for research labs developing vaccines.
The way to illegally
Re: (Score:2)
Why did it occur in the month following 9/11?
It was the style at the time?