Writing about 9/11 truth, and its offshoots, has always produced a consistent response from 'truth' activists.
Larry O'Hara, Heidi Svenson and myself have all at some stage encountered 'truthers' who have drawn a whole series of conclusions about our politics from the fact we disagree with their interpretation of 9/11. The most common of these is to assume that we are pro-war - my email exchange with David Rose of Goldsmiths University, reproduced in the current Notes From the Borderland, is a recent example of this phenomenon. To hold the position that attacking Iraq and Afganistan was a poor idea, but that Al Qaeda carried out 9/11, appears to be inconceivable.
There are some signs that a similar absolutism has begun to infect some of those who support Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Owen Jones' article in The Independent that Assange should go back to Sweden and face the music produced a whole series of over the top responses from the Australian's supporters, including accusations Jones might be working for the security services. Is it not possible for Jones to innocently dissent from their position? The Blog That Peter Wrote has travelled similar ground to Jones, where comment on Wikileaks has been followed by an avalanche of bizarre claims and unfounded assertions. The term 'Assange Cultism' is used to describe the response.
These are worrying developments, and a sign of the 'truth' approach to politics beginning to infect not just issues around terrorism and counter-terrorism, but questions such as extradition law and the prosecution of sexual offences. This blog has always taken a consistent approach to the dangers posed by the truth movement - if unchallenged, its method and its ideas will spread. Don't say you were not warned...........