Robin Hood wrote:The problem is today that whatever is released without any evidence in the early stages of an event, is automatically assumed to be the truth by those that form an opinion by just skimming the headlines of the MSM or watching TV. Syria and Aleppo being a classic case of that ‘syndrome’! This initial opinion then becomes the ‘truth’ even though there has been no opportunity to put all the various bits of evidence together to form a much more likely scenario ........and the subject then fades from the headlines.
It will take many days before those in the know, if there is a cover up going on, will blow the whistle. Then this has to be routed to independent investigative journalists who again will have ‘contacts’ and then, an even more detailed story is formed. It is only then that we will be able to make our own judgement. Those that believe the initial ‘truth’ just carry on believing the first thing they were told as they rarely consult the independent news outlets for the later information.
I can understand the attraction (if your views are that way inclined) of the OP's philosophy and thus a possible conundrum.
Nevertheless, if his view is acceptable then clearly there is nothing more to be said. It doesn't matter what revelations unfold (and as Milti states those so far are compelling) none make any difference at all. They all merely become part of officialdom's "cover up" and are swept aside. You can't debate on such terms, it seems to me, because common sense and logic don't enter into it. From his POV I imagine that it's all so obvious to the OP and that people who refuse to acknowledge that this is yet another cynical stitch up by those in power are by implication gullible idiots. There lies the provocation.
Where is the supporting evidence for the OP? Moreover, should there actually be any (most unlikely I suspect) why shouldn't the gullible idiots reject it, regarding it equally as a stitch up?
It isn't debate in any sense, just giving vent to prejudicial fantasies.