There have been TWO national tragedies on 9/11. Don’t forget either one.
Quite a difference in responses.
9/11/01 (WTC, Pentagon, Flight 93): “Let’s roll!”
9/11/12 (Benghazi, Libya): “Stand down!”
Showing posts with label Pentagon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Pentagon. Show all posts
Sunday, September 10, 2023
Thursday, April 11, 2019
The Omar Spin...
She says her remarks were taken out of context.
Let's consider that.
The context of her statement was a speech in which she decried the treatment she says muslims have endured because of the actions of "some people" on 9-11:
There is no mistake about what she said, and no one is taking anything she said out of context.
So what, exactly, does she mean when she refers to "some people"?
Given that the context is muslim discontent and justifying muslims, "some people" has to have one of two meanings.
First, she is downplaying the role muslims played during 9-11, as she has been accused. The 9-11 attacks were insignificant, even justified.
That is one possibility.
But there is another possible interpretation, one that has yet to be discussed publicly but is even more insidious: the "some people" involved in the 9-11 attacks were members of the US CIA and the Israeli Mossad.
Many in the muslim community have bought into the conspiracy theory that there were no muslims and no jets. 9-11 was a false flag operation carried out jointly between the CIA and Mossad to give the US justification to engage in unbridled war against muslims across the world. The destruction of the twin towers was carried out using nanothermite charges to weaken the structural steel in the buildings. The destruction of the towers, then, was the result of controlled detonations. The footage showing the jets? All manufactured video. The "witnesses"? Crisis actors employed by the two intelligence agencies to help sell the narrative.
So it wasn't muslims who attacked, it was "some people": unnamed, mysterious government agents who cannot be named publicly by Omar without REALLY opening her up to accusation.
Of the two possible interpretations, the second one is the most likely.
Let's consider that.
The context of her statement was a speech in which she decried the treatment she says muslims have endured because of the actions of "some people" on 9-11:
“Far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second class citizen. And frankly, I’m tired of it. And every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it. CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”
There is no mistake about what she said, and no one is taking anything she said out of context.
So what, exactly, does she mean when she refers to "some people"?
Given that the context is muslim discontent and justifying muslims, "some people" has to have one of two meanings.
First, she is downplaying the role muslims played during 9-11, as she has been accused. The 9-11 attacks were insignificant, even justified.
That is one possibility.
But there is another possible interpretation, one that has yet to be discussed publicly but is even more insidious: the "some people" involved in the 9-11 attacks were members of the US CIA and the Israeli Mossad.
Many in the muslim community have bought into the conspiracy theory that there were no muslims and no jets. 9-11 was a false flag operation carried out jointly between the CIA and Mossad to give the US justification to engage in unbridled war against muslims across the world. The destruction of the twin towers was carried out using nanothermite charges to weaken the structural steel in the buildings. The destruction of the towers, then, was the result of controlled detonations. The footage showing the jets? All manufactured video. The "witnesses"? Crisis actors employed by the two intelligence agencies to help sell the narrative.
So it wasn't muslims who attacked, it was "some people": unnamed, mysterious government agents who cannot be named publicly by Omar without REALLY opening her up to accusation.
Of the two possible interpretations, the second one is the most likely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)