X/@RealCandaceO
Owens may have given rise to a heated online controversy when she claimed that sleeper-cell attacks by the Iranians upon American soil “are now to be expected.” Above her post was an image of the issue in a certain news report; she captioned it: “It’s almost cartoonish in its absurdity.” The picture was a screenshot from a news segment discussing threats from Iran towards America.
Advertisement
The commentaries that flowed on into the comment section of her post were quite numerous. Several agreed with her, while others accused her of scaremongering or indeed some sort of propaganda. “Biden would be proud,” commented one sarcastically, implying that Owens‘ statement could well be interpreted in a manner similar to Democratic rhetoric. Then the other accused her of “propeganda” meant to justify Washington’s military intervention in Iran.
Another one commented that the very presence of sleeper cells did justify Trump’s targeting of Iran: “It just proves the President made the right call.” Others kept up with the conspiracies: One said the threat was a “Psyop” just like 9/11; another insisted that it was not an Israeli sleeper cell casting shadows.
The debate had found a leash to bark once some of the users began drawing parallels to past instances of violence allegedly brought about by inflammatory rhetoric. One user referenced a situation wherein the security guard for a public figure was shot while hinting that Owens’ statement could well lead to similar acts. Another comment, in contrast to these, suggested that Owens is being exploited by Iranian media to bolster their agenda.
Amid the orgy of counter-accusations, a few voices were appealing for restraint. One follower said, “Sit this one out my girl,” implying respect for Owens’ usual points of view while disagreeing with her on this one. Meanwhile, the AI-enabled Grok diverged and started dissecting media bias that may very well be unrelated to the initial post.
This occasion captures how deeply divided Americans are regarding perceptions of foreign threats and the influence political rhetoric has on shaping those perceptions. Owens’ warning is likely either to gain cult status or act as fuel to the fire. Still, it, by itself, shows how sensitive national-security conversations have become in this day and age, especially with them being politicized.
Advertisement
Those who strayed further down the rabbit hole in this thread soon found themselves naming historical precedents, accusing foreign entities of interference, and launching personal castigations against Owens herself. The broad range of responses-floating sober analyses and wild conspiracy theories-almost perfectly demonstrates how a single controversial statement can morph into a microcosm of American political discourse at large. With tensions being raised on so many fronts abroad, this exchange may just become a precursor to many more heated confrontations centered on the idea of threats facing the nation and how to best respond to those.