>https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-9-11-tweet-deleted-airplanesThe New York Times caused an uproar on Wednesday with a now-deleted tweet and now-updated story that originally said “airplanes” were responsible for the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001.“18 years have passed since airplanes took aim and brought down the World Trade Center. Today, families will once again gather and grieve at the site where more than 2000 people died,” the Times’ verified Twitter account wrote in a message accompanying a story about 9/11 victims being remembered at Ground Zero.The 9/11 anniversary message was immediately met with harsh criticism and was swiftly deleted.“The @NYT says airplanes caused 9/11. Wrong. It was Muslim terrorists who waged jihad on American soil and killed thousands of our fellow countrymen in the name of their religion,” Fox News’ Todd Starnes wrote, while Fox News contributor Mike Huckabee noted that the paper doesn’t seem to “have much grasp on recent history.”“Twin Towers NOT brought down because “airplanes took aim” at them, but b/c radical Islamists hijacked planes & took aim at them,” Huckabee added.Many users compared the rhetoric in the Times tweet to an infamous remark made by Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., earlier this year when she said “some people did something” when describing the 9/11 attacks.
Well, I suppose you can pick semantics. As long as you do the same for everyone.What does 'covfefe' mean, by the way?
>>458839Sssssoooooooooooo.......People are the problem? Not the instrument they're using to facilitate murder?Interesting...>>458849Try not to think about it. Staring too long into the abyss and all that.
Jews did 9/11
Is there a single person on the planet who who read that and conclude that the NYT literally thought planes conducted the attacks of their own accord? This sure feels like deliberately attempting to read something incorrectly to manufacture something to be offended about.
>>458865You can make an argument that saying "airplanes" an example of sanitized language intended to shape how people think. I can get behind that but it also seems like one of those "it's okay when we do it" things.
>>458861Yeah exactly People are the problem not the instruments But nyt obviously thinks differently with their stance on guns and airplanes
>>458839Seems like an odd thing to get offended at
>>458877>trump doesn't engage in "stochastic terrorism," that's not even a real thing
>>458849Coverage, except Trump's sausage fingers fucked it up beyond recognition.
>>458909>what's offensive, I don't see anything offensiveWhy do you freaks pretend to be this dense? Airplanes killed nobody that day, murderers did. We don't say a knife killed multiple people, we say a serial killer did
>>458865>>458877"airplanes" "youths" "teens" lib medias will never, ever name a non-white as a criminal/terrorist. They will always circumvent the truth as much as possible.
>>458839>The @NYT says airplanes caused 9/11.That's a pretty uncharitable reading. It's an artistic turn on saying the usual thing that you say every year on 9/11; instead of naming the actors you name the objects to kinda spice it up. I mean, if Huckabee's suggesting that they named the objects, the planes, rather than the actors in order to obfuscate the actors, does he think it equally likely that the NYT wants to ban airplanes or has some other insidious plan? And if not, why not?You can call the NYT's phrasing obfuscation if you like, this reaction is even more misleading. There's no way either of the men quoted seriously believes that the NYT seriously believes that nobody remembers Muslims did 9/11, but they're seizing on poor phrasing to attack someone they don't like anyway.
don't ban assault airplanes, airplanes don't kill people other people do...
>>458936Imagine being this naive.
>>458940You're dishonest Huckabee, go to bed.
>>458942>Thread about NYT using dishonest obfuscating language>NO U, says the libtard dropping some name i don't fucking know abouttypical libtard method of arguing, always putting yourself as the lower position.
>>458946You're a shitstain of low cognitive ability Huckabee, go to bed.
>>458849Apples to oranges.Airplanes is not a typo.
Isn’t getting offended over minor word choices what you /pol/tards complain about the left doing?
>>458865>"airplanes took aim"I mean, the way they worded it they *are* plainly attributing deliberate action to inanimate objects. No, I don't think they genuinely believe the airplanes carried out the attack on their own, but it is a very obvious and clumsy attempt to avoid evoking Islamic terrorism. Hell, they didn't even have to mention Islam. They could've just said "terrorists," but apparently even that is too problematic for the NYT.
>>458988Nobody's getting offended, you fucking twit. What is being said is that there's a very blatant intent behind the choice of words that's representative of leftist outlet to never put any negative light on anyone who isn't white.
>Republicans blaming everyone but themselves for 9/11Seems right.
>>459011>the New York times is leftistYou wouldn't know a leftist if you saw one, son.
>>459018Here's your 'you'. Stay retarded.
>Muslim terroristsEqually and purposefully inaccurate. It was Saudi "tribalists". Bin Laden was a Saudi as were almost all of the terrorists on the plane. His gripe with the US was over their political meddling and warring in the middle east.Nothing to do with "Muslims". You wouldn't say the IRA are "Christian terrorists" because their objectives and motivations were primarily political.
>>459011>WWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA>WHY ARE THEY NOT BLAMING AND DEHUMANIZING 1/4 OF THE WORLD, SO THAT I CAN FEEL LIKE I'M SOME DEUS VULT CRUSADER IN A RELIGIOUS WAR
>>458865Authors of renowned papers repeatedly slave over the meaning of every word before going to print. These words were chosen to fit in-line with political correctness, but it created a literary SNAFU because the sentence structure implies that an inanimate object was responsible for the towers falling, rather than Islamic terrorists. It's offensive because they're trying to pander to certain religious groups by using soft language, despite everybody fucking knowing why it happened and who perpetrated that act of mass murder in the first place.
>>459034>Authors of renowned papers repeatedly slave over the meaning of every word before going to print.It's a tweet retard
>>459035Sorry, I forgot that Twitter wasn't instrumental in advertising and keeping businesses in frequent communication with consumers, and that newspaper outlets didn't actually care about what they wrote. Fucking idiot.
>>459034>knowing why it happened and who perpetrated that act of mass murder in the first place.Please do tell, lol.
>I'm OUTRAGED the NYT is allowed to print whatever they want!Is this article for real?
>>459031lmfao bin laden had NOTHING to do with it, he was a patsy you dummy, the FBI themselves admitted they had zero evidence linking him to it. It was orchestrated by Israeli Mossad, if you disagree you simply haven't done the research
>>459058steel beams can't melt jet fuel
>>459058>saudi arabia is mossad.take your heart meds boomer
>>458839oh wow, this is an outrage, I'm so darn outraged
>>458931Yeat you say guns kills peoples
>>458931i find it really two faced to complain about sjws going out of their way to offended and then do this.
>>459011No it seems like you’re getting upset
>>459036So you're saying we should take everything Trump says on Twitter literally?
>>459078They call liberals snowflakes, meanwhile they get up in arms about word usage. The purpose of the tweet is not to point fingers; it is to commemorate a tragedy. Leave it to Fox News to stir up islamophobia.
>>459078What part of your mental illness cult forces you to reduce everything to "offendedness"
>>458839It's just a turn of phrase you autistic retard.Of course the planes don't have conscious decision. But they did " aim " at the towers.
>>459119>Islamophobia Did you just start browsing 4chan, or are you from reddit?
>>459374Neither. There are more sites than 4chan and Reddit.
>>459374i'm not saying i'm pro islam, but i don't think women should vote, drive, speak in public, or be allowed to have credit cards or bank accounts.
>>458849>whataboutism>it's ok when we do it
>>459500Tumblr, resetera, or some other leftist hugbox?
>>459561Actually, none. Nice try tho.
>>459561They're all leftist hugboxes when you're so far to the right you think Ronald Reagan was a liberal for his amnesty for illegal aliens and assault weapons ban.
>>459605I unironically hope Reagan is burning in hell if there is one for giving those subhuman spics amnesty, he was a traitor.
If guns can kill people airplanes can too. What’s the problem?