Remember today I joked that Osama bin Laden was killed months ago and was being preserved in a refrigerator in a basement in Kandahar? Guess what?
Alex Jones, conspiracy theorist/ birther gives us a timeline for the hoax. As with many conspiracy theories the basic premise sounds interesting though as the (entirely anecdotal) evidence is laid out it becomes less compelling.
If you’re truly paranoid, you might consider whether Jones is simply a plant, whose bizarre claims are meant to discredit legitimate criticism of US policies.
And one more:
WASHINGTON — Attorney General Eric Holder told Congress on Tuesday that Osama bin Laden will never face trial in the United States because he will not be captured alive.
In testy exchanges with House Republicans, the attorney general compared bin Laden to mass murderer Charles Manson and predicted that events would ensure “we will be reading Miranda rights to the corpse of Osama bin Laden” not to the al-Qaida leader as a captive.
If you have any links you’d like to share about any aspect of this event, post them here please.
If conspiracy theory is a form of interpretation, an alternate explanation of events that disagrees with the official story, then your final paper should possess a conspiratorial character.
Put another way, the text is the official version of events. A critical reading of it ought to be paranoid: convinced that it means more than it seems to say. Good conspiracy theorists don’t simply make up the first thing that occurs to them (Osama bin Laden is an animatronic mannequin like in that Pirates of the Caribbean ride at Disney) but use omissions, suspicions and available facts to promote another, critical narrative.
Here’s the video clip of Pres. Obama announcing the killing of Osama bin Laden:
The transcript of that speech:
Political speeches are among the easiest to parse for their ideological content and narrative structure. At issue here is not only what is said, but how it is said. By examining the narrative “shape” of Obama’s announcement we can both 1) assess the deeper meaning and purposes of his statement 2) suggest a model of textual interpretation. To do this we probably ought to set aside moral considerations, and indeed the reflexive cynicism that most of us experience. Cynicism is critical, after a fashion, though often not critical enough in that it substitutes a kind of “everybody’s always full of shit” stance for active, perceptive engagement with a text (or practice, image, etc.).