I enjoy a good conspiracy theory. Notice the word, “good”, something that has at least some concrete evidence that can’t be disputed even if the rest of the story is questionable. Aisha’s latest rounds of theories sound like something out of a Hollywood movie yet to be made, where the script is still being tweaked to make sure it’s a success. Now I will admit I have enjoyed her previous theories surrounding the events of 9/11, as much of them had been previously stated by other sources; Aisha was just restating. But her latest theories surrounding the recent botched Christmas bombing seem to have no other sources, but hers. First she claimed she believed our dear brother (he is Nigerian after all) Umar Farouk was drugged, which I think is a bit farfetched. Why would an alleged (for the sake of argument, we’ll use the word “alleged”) suicide bomber drug himself? I’ve heard of people taking alcohol or drugs before committing a crime, but not one where the primary crime involves killing themselves, especially if they think they’re on their way to heaven. It will seem nobler to die of martyrdom with one’s senses intact.
Second of all, if indeed Farouk was drugged, how do we explain his erratic behaviour before the bombing, like cutting ties with his family? Did someone drug him to do that all in the name of learning Arabic and whatnot in Yemen? I don’t know of people getting high to read about religion. Aisha’s second claim was that the Dutch director was part of the frame up and went as far as saying the man was never shown on TV. Actually, my dear Aisha, he was… on CNN. Or is CNN part of the cover-up now? I never saw the director on any other network, but I’m sure his 15 minutes didn’t warrant for more exposure time. It’s not like he landed a failing airplane in the Hudson. Aisha went further to compare the director’s underexposure to Gulliani’s overexposure after the 9/11 crisis and how the mayor was named Time’s man of the year. Gulliani was only named man of the year, because the magazine couldn’t afford to name Osama Bin Laden (the original decided winner) as its man of the year, risking a loss in readership after complaints of the numerous image of the “perpetrator”. So they went for a less controversial individual, yet one still tied to the events of 9/11. Time has a dubious way of picking its annual man of the year, like two years ago, when they gave it to You! PLEASE! They should’ve given it to YouTube, though not a person, it’s still You in a way, but that’s not what we’re discussing here.
The only thing that Aisha wrote in her soap opera conspiracy that seems to hold any water is the fact that the Farouk’s underwear caught fire, yet there was no mention of flesh wounds on his skin and how he managed to walk into court with no sign of pain or recovery. Granted, she raised an important issue there. Now to be fair to Aisha, I’m not saying imperialistic powers like the U.S have never pulled off such elaborate hoax in the hopes of achieving something else, but let’s have some substantial proof. Unless Aisha was on the flight to Detriot, she should keep her theories to a minimum. I’m surprised Media Trust allowed her articles to be published, especially when it’s not under a column, which would make it clear to the reader it’s her opinion. But when it’s published not under a column titled, ‘Conspiracy theories” and just as a newspaper article, it brings to question the meaning of “researched journalism”. I understand the need to jump to conclusion, especially when living in a conspiracy prone world, but the best conspiracies are based on some form of facts. As far as the Christmas bombing, there is none except what we’re being told… for now.
P.S In the case that Aisha is indeed right, she should feel free to say, “I told you so!” I shan’t complain! But I leave you with a conspiracy theory of mine and I’ll let readers decide which has more credibility, mine or Aisha’s. How come the U.S is so hands-on on helping Haiti, even sending firemen from their various states, yet they couldn’t produce the same response in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina? I doubt it has anything to do with a different leadership. Are they planning to send in their “economic hit-men”, when the dust settles? You know the people who make business ties for the United States so they keep making money. For example, they hire an American company to rebuild certain parts of Haiti thus gaining an economic advantage over other companies, locally and otherwise.
And here’s an extra one for you: Why do people in the United States who live in hurricane prone areas always seem to build their houses with wood? Haven’t they heard of concrete or bricks? Or is someone making money off wood? That or it must be extremely cheap! Either way someone is making money!
No comments:
Post a Comment