If you’ve ever questioned the official version of the 9/11 story, aren’t convinced that Oswald acted alone, or are suspicious of the Moon Landing, then you’re a terrorist.
That’s what the media and those in power want the public to believe anyway. They want the public to feel uncomfortable around, even scared of, anyone who questions the official stories they propagate. And what better way to do that than to make it a policy to associate conspiracy theorists with terrorism any chance they get?
Case in point.
U.S. soldier, Ikaika Kang, who pledged loyalty to ISIS was recently arrested on terrorism charges in Hawaii, and what does Fox News, CBS News, and USA News all deem headline worthy?
That he believed in conspiracy theories. Notice the image at the top of the page. Here are the other two.
Notice the sub-headline.
They don’t only use the headlines to associate belief in conspiracies with terrorism. Their opening paragraphs drill this point home as well.
Fox News and USA News both opened their articles with the following.
“A U.S. soldier accused of wanting to commit a mass shooting after pledging loyalty to the Islamic State group believed the moon landing was faked, questioned the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and thought the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were an inside job coordinated by the U.S. government, according to a former Army bunkmate.”
CBS News makes the same point in a slightly different manner.
“A former bunk mate of a U.S. soldier accused of pledging loyalty to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) group says they debated conspiracy theories. Dustin Lyles says Army Sgt. 1st Class Ikaika Kang believed the moon landing was faked, questioned the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and thought the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks were an inside job coordinated by the U.S. government.”
The fact that Kang had at one point in time questioned the official version of those events has nothing to do with his terrorism charges. The media just doesn’t want people asking questions, so they will continue to try and demonize those who do. That’s why we must continue to ask critical questions, and continue to let reason guide us. The emotionally charged propaganda only works if we allow it to.
Here are a few interesting things being reported about his radicalization
Kang’s lawyer says Kang never had any contact with real members of ISIS.
“According to court documents, Kang met with undercover agents he thought were from the Islamic State group at a home in Honolulu, where he pledged allegiance to the group and kissed an Islamic State flag.”
If Kang only met with undercover FBI agents posing as members of ISIS, and never met with real members of ISIS, then who radicalized him? The FBI? In this timeline of events leading up to his arrest, the FBI sure seems to play an active role in his radicalization. Not to mention that his lawyer believes that the government was “pouring gasoline on the fire of his mental illness.”
According to the timeline of events leading up to his arrest;
“An undercover FBI agent posed as a guest lecturer at the training program and was introduced to Kang. The two spent several days interacting, including going to a mosque to pray together. Kang then told the FBI agent that he wanted to travel to Turkey to visit an Islamic State group consulate, but that he was afraid he would be arrested if did so. The undercover agent told Kang that he thought the Islamic State could use his skills, and Kang said that he wanted to provide training to their fighters. The FBI agent told Kang that he knew a militant who would be traveling to Hawaii, and could arrange a meeting.”
This sounds like an undercover FBI agent spent several days radicalizing Kang, and then when Kang was reluctant, the agent reassured him. The FBI agent is pushing Kang towards radicalization, and the commission of a crime. Shouldn’t he be pushing him away from it?
Also from the timeline of events;
“Kang returns from Iraq in February. Over the course of the year, Kang was repeatedly reprimanded for threatening to kill other service members and making pro-Islamic State group arguments while on duty.”
After this, in July of 2013, he was deployed to Afghanistan. What sense does this make? He had already expressed pro-Islamic State views and shown clear signs of psychological problems. Shouldn’t they have discharged him or helped him? This makes his interactions with the undercover FBI agents in 2016 all that much more suspicious. They knew his history, and they knew about his psychological issues, yet the FBI seems to have provoked him instead of helped him.
If you like this post, share it with your friends and subscribe to the Propaganda Report Podcast on iTunes or on Google Play for weekly propaganda analysis.
For weekly videos, subscribe to my youtube page. Thanks for reading!