smoth wrote:I feel that spliff borders on and exhibits signs of unhealthy skepticism.
When it comes to politics no amount of skepticism is unhealthy.
My opinions aren't radical either, here is an Australian QC (a high-profile lawyer) accusing Barack Obama of murder (
ABC News).
I'm also not the only one skeptical about bin ladens guilt in regards to 9/11. As far as I know the intelligence that caused Bush to claim he did it has still not been released or confirmed independently, even though 10 years have past. I'm also mindful of the fact that Bush also claimed he was hiding out in Iraq and numerous other claims that have been conclusively proven to be outright lies.
I don't understand how anyone can accept Bush lied about matters of national security to promote two different wars but not accept the whole basis of the war on terror is probably a lie as well.
Most of "bin laden"'s announcements since 9/11 have come in the lead-up to a U.S. election and basically been pushed in the media to support the incumbent.
According to reports bin laden was unarmed when he was shot. Had he been put on trial like is required by International law it's entirely possible American's would have learned some uncomfortable truths.
As an Australian I'm outraged. We've been forced to tow the line and support the war on terror and now the U.S. have once again acted unilaterally and prevented us from independently verifying if the whole purpose of these wars has any validity or if we've just spent billions of dollars chasing a patsy for 10 years.
The trouble with "waiting for all the details" is you miss the really interesting "truth-building" process. What's happening now is the same thing I saw during the 9/11 aftermath. The "official story" was actually a fluid thing that changed from day to day. There were some real gems in there like claims of terrorist passports being found in the trade center debris and different versions of why the planes weren't shot down. There were even different versions of the passenger manifests for the planes. My point is there was a real feeling that the whitehouse was just making it all up as they went along and quietly redacting the less believable parts of the story when they got called out on their bullshit. The mainstream press seemed to have no issue with publishing conflicting versions of the same claim and calling both claims the truth.
Finally smoth, calling bullshit on habitual bullshitters isn't an ideology, it's just plain speaking. If I have any ideology in regards to Americans it's pity. They're being robbed blind and sent into pointless wars by the people that are supposed to protect them and the worst part is the majority don't even seem to realise it.