Quite a bit of terror related news has been filtering in over the last few days with the U.S. and the UK banning certain electronic devices from being carried on to flights as an "anti-terrorist" precaution, due to information obtained during the January Yemen raid, which the MSM has consistently implied was a failure after the death of a Navy SEAL during the mission, also claiming the mission garnered no information in their never-ending attacks against President Trump.
The U.S. ban is on devices larger than a smartphone, and covers nine airlines out of 10 airports, with the UK ban similar in nature but applied to different airlines, up to 14 of them, banning laptops on inbound direct flights from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia, according to BBC and other news outlets. Canada is now reportedly considering "restrictions" on electronic devices in the cabins of planes.
Also, on the anniversary of the Brussels terror attack, which occurred on March 22, 2016, which resulted in the death of 32 civilians and the injury of more than 300 people, there was a terror attack in the UK, where the suspect, killed up to four people, stabbed an officer, and mowed down a dozen people on Westminster Bridge, causing "catastrophic" injuries.
DOES THE ATTACKER LOOK 'ASIAN'?
Initial reports claimed that it was not "immediately known if there was more than one attacker," which seems to be a pattern of reporting when a terrorist incident is reported on these days, but the rush of reports describing the man as "Asian in appearance," from both The Sun and quoted at Daily Mail (although the Daily Mail did put the word "Asian" in quotes), might offer them an easy "out" if the perpetrator ends up not being Asian, but shows what appears to be an attempt to disassociate the attack from Islamic extremism.
After seeing the images of the suspect that was shot by the police before he was loaded up into the ambulance, he certainly doesn't "appear" Asian. I am not asserting he is not, what I am asserting is by looking at him, "Asian" is not the first thing that comes to mind.
Look for yourself:
The Sun's description, on the very article that provided this image, states he was a "bearded man" then subsequently writes "The man, who was reportedly Asian in appearance...."
Why do I say "Asian" is not the first thing that comes to mind? Asian Physical Characteristics, which shows that in "almost" all cases, "Asians have straight, black hair and dark eyes. They also tend to have less body hair, less facial hair, flatter faces, smaller noses, wider cheekbones, and "shovel-shaped" incisor teeth (slightly scooped out shape of back side of the front teeth)."
Don't get me wrong, it is not unheard of for Asians to have facial hair and body hair, but looking at the image above, as well as reading about the physical characteristics of Asians, it is not the first thing that comes to mind when you see an obvious beard, what appears to be hair on the chest and even some around the stomach area.
So, ask yourself why is the man being described as "Asian" before news is even reporting his name? Feel free to leave your theories on that in the comment section below.
LIES OF OMISSION
What the MSM isn't reporting seems to be just as indicative of agenda reporting as automatically attempting to create the association about the suspect being "Asian" in appearance before all the facts are in, because everyone knows the initial reports are what people remember, even if contrary facts are revealed later.
Is it just a coincidence that hours later a man mows down pedestrians on Westminster Bridge? The MSM did report it, then reported the UK terror attack, but we have not seen any connect the two or even ask the obvious question if they are related, if his words influenced subsequent events, if his statement was a call for this type of attack.
Using tear gas, water cannons and rubber bullets, Turkish police recently seized control of the country’s largest-circulation daily newspaper, Zaman.
This blatant display of force demonstrates how far Turkey’s increasingly autocratic President Recep Tayyip Erdogan will go to solidify his power and pursue his vendetta against the adversary he fears most: the moderate Muslim cleric Fethullah Gulen, whose columns were published by Zaman.
Over the past few years, many Americans heard the term “caliphate” for the first time as ISIS declared that the territory it seized from Iraq and Syria was the caliphate reborn. To us, “caliphate” appeared to be just another name for a vast torture chamber. But for hundreds of millions of Muslims, many of whom have nothing to do with ISIS, the caliphate is associated with a lost and much-romanticized golden age when the caliph, who was also the Turkish sultan, claimed spiritual dominion over all Muslims.
Many believe that Erdogan wishes to be that "Islamic Caliph," by making himself a Turkish Sultan. Professor Glenn Reynolds highlighted this in an article at USA Today in July 2016, where he details the failed "coup," against Erdogan, which some thought seemed very contrived, to which Erdogan followed up by rounding up at least 6,000 soldiers and 3,000 judges and legal officials, firing over 15,000 educators, who had nothing to do with the coup, putting the crackdown toll at around 50,000 people.
Reynolds followed that information up by pointing out "what Erdogan is really doing is eradicating the last remnants of the secular Turkish state, as he proceeds to turn Turkey into, instead, an Islamic State. As he builds an enormous palace, consolidates power, and elevates Islamists over secular types, it almost looks as if he’s trying to restore the Ottoman Empire with himself in the role of Sultan. In fact, Erdogan has made that comparison himself."
Why is no one in the media even asking if Erdogan's threat against Europe, specifically talking about not being safe walking in the streets, is connected in any way to a terror attack that included mowing down innocents who were walking along the Westminster bridge? If Erdogan is in fact attempting to create the role of a Sultan for himself in order to become the "Islamic Caliph," which is the title for the ruler of the Islamic Ummah, as the political successors to Muhammad," is it that much of a stretch to think that other radical Islamic extremists would also see him as such, therefore carrying out attacks believing that is what he was calling for?
The rush of the media to claim the terrorist was "Asian" in appearance, considering that Erdogan threatened Europe just hours before the UK was attacked, on the anniversary of a massive terror attack just a year before in Brussels, could also "appear" to be an attempt to disassociate this terror attack with the term "radical Islamic extremist," especially given the the attempts on the part of multiple countries to cover-up crimes committed in their countries by Islamic migrants.
A live feed on the ongoing reporting of the UK terror attack.
