You really couldn’t make this stuff up. Who was the leading visionary the Omani terror pilot supposedly looked up to?None other than our fantastic mayor of NYC, the venerated Zohran Mamdani.The terrorist was an avid fan of the NYC mayor, and after hearing Mamdani praise individuals involved in 9/11, he allegedly decided to try to reenact it himself.This man is spreading terror.'

Yes, this is a useful example of a possible projection/transfer of responsibility, but I would make the argument more precise than simply calling it “projection.” The central problem is that the post appears to transfer the alleged terrorist's responsibility onto a political figure through an asserted ideological connection that has not been demonstrated.

I checked the current reporting because this is a very recent incident. The underlying aircraft incident is being treated by UAE authorities as a terrorist act, and CNN reports that the suspect is Hamam al-Hammami, an Omani national. However, the investigation is ongoing, and CNN specifically reported that investigators were still trying to determine whether it was directed by Iran, al-Qaeda or another group, or whether it was a lone-actor operation.

1. First separate the facts from the accusation

The post makes several different propositions:

An Omani co-pilot allegedly attacked the captain and attempted to take control of the aircraft.
The incident was treated as terrorism by UAE authorities.
The attacker supposedly admired Zohran Mamdani.
Mamdani supposedly praised people involved in 9/11.
Because of hearing Mamdani, the attacker allegedly decided to reenact 9/11.
Therefore, “this man is spreading terror.”

These propositions do not have the same evidentiary status.

The first two have substantial current reporting behind them. The later propositions require much stronger evidence.

In particular, I could find reports circulating that the suspect supposedly admired Mamdani, including a claimed diary reference, but those reports are coming from partisan/secondary sources and I did not find independent confirmation establishing that the alleged diary exists, that the quotation is authentic, or that the suspect was motivated by Mamdani.

That distinction is crucial.

2. The central logical jump

The post essentially constructs this chain:

Mamdani said X → terrorist heard X → terrorist admired Mamdani → terrorist committed attempted attack → therefore Mamdani is spreading terror.

Even if the first four links were established, the last inference would still require additional evidence.

This is a classic problem of causal attribution.

Someone's admiration for a politician does not establish that the politician caused that person's subsequent criminal conduct.

For example:

A terrorist admires politician A.
A terrorist commits an attack.
Therefore politician A caused or encouraged the attack.

That conclusion does not follow without evidence showing:

what the politician actually said;
what the terrorist heard;
how the terrorist interpreted it;
whether it changed his beliefs;
whether it contributed to his decision;
whether he explicitly identified the politician's statements as a motivation;
and whether there were other, stronger causes.

Without that chain, we have association, not demonstrated causation.

3. This is where your word “projection” is useful

Projection, in this analytical sense, means attributing to another person a characteristic, responsibility, or conduct that actually belongs to someone else.

The terrorist's conduct is his conduct unless evidence establishes another person's participation, incitement, direction or causation.

Therefore:

A terrorist's admiration for Mamdani, even if genuine, does not transfer the terrorist's responsibility to Mamdani.

The attacker remains responsible for his own actions.

The post appears to do something rhetorically different: it takes the moral contamination associated with the terrorist and attempts to attach it to Mamdani through association.

That is better described as:

responsibility by association

guilt by association

rather than simply projection.

4. The most important distinction: influence ≠ responsibility

This is a distinction the post completely collapses.

There are several levels:

Exposure

The attacker heard Mamdani speak.

↓

Admiration

The attacker admired Mamdani.

↓

Influence

Mamdani's statements influenced the attacker's political thinking.

↓

Motivation

Those statements materially contributed to the attack.

↓

Incitement

Mamdani's statements encouraged or directed violence.

↓

Causal responsibility

The statements were a significant causal factor in the actual attack.

These are not interchangeable propositions.

The post appears to move from admiration directly to terrorist causation.

That is an enormous evidentiary leap.

5. The “9/11” claim requires even more evidence

The post says:

“after hearing Mamdani praise individuals involved in 9/11, he allegedly decided to try to reenact it himself.”

This is a particularly strong causal assertion.

Notice the words:

“after hearing”

and

“decided to try to reenact it.”

“After” establishes, at most, sequence in time.

It does not establish causation.

This is the classic distinction:

Post hoc ≠ propter hoc

Latin terminology, but the meaning is simple:

“It happened after X” does not prove “it happened because of X.”

If the attacker heard Mamdani yesterday and attacked today, the temporal sequence would still not prove that Mamdani caused the attack.

We would need evidence of the intervening psychological/ideological process.

6. There is also a missing “middle”

This is very similar to the causal-vacuum problem you have identified in other posts.

The post jumps from:

Mamdani

directly to

terrorism.

What is missing is everything in between:

the attacker's previous ideological development;
his alleged extremist material;
his previous associations;
his personal history;
his religious/political beliefs;
his alleged radicalization;
whether he belonged to an extremist organization;
whether he had contact with other extremists;
whether he had independently planned the attack;
what investigators find on his devices or in his writings.

CNN explicitly reported that investigators were still trying to establish whether the attack was connected to Iran, al-Qaeda or another organization, or whether it was a lone-actor attack.

Therefore, prematurely identifying Mamdani as the causal source is methodologically unsound.

7. The post also uses “praise” ambiguously

This is another place where precision matters.

What exactly did Mamdani allegedly “praise”?

There is a huge difference between:

“Mamdani praised the perpetrators of 9/11.”

and

“Mamdani made a statement concerning people or events associated with 9/11 that the author interprets as praise.”

Those are not equivalent.

The original statement must be examined in its full context.

Was he:

praising the attacks?
praising a particular individual?
discussing a political grievance?
distinguishing civilians from combatants?
discussing U.S. foreign policy?
condemning terrorism while discussing its causes?
making a historically descriptive statement?

Until the exact statement and context are established, “praised individuals involved in 9/11” is itself an interpretive characterization.

8. “He is spreading terror” is rhetorically much stronger than the evidence

This sentence is the culmination of the post:

“This man is spreading terror.”

But what does “spreading terror” mean?

It could mean:

He personally commits terrorism.
He advocates terrorism.
He incites terrorism.
He provides ideological justification for terrorism.
His rhetoric indirectly influences extremists.
Terrorists happen to admire him.

These are radically different propositions.

If the evidence establishes only number 6, then saying number 1–5 would be unjustified.

This is a category error: moving from one category of relationship—admiration—to another—responsibility for terrorism.

9. There is also an interesting rhetorical reversal

Look at the structure of the post:

“Who was the leading visionary the Omani terror pilot supposedly looked up to?”

The wording “leading visionary” is sarcastic.

Then:

“None other than our fantastic mayor…”

Again sarcastic.

Then:

“This man is spreading terror.”

The post has therefore already reached its conclusion rhetorically before demonstrating the causal connection.

The alleged evidence is then presented to support a conclusion that has effectively already been announced.

That is rhetorical framing, not neutral investigation.

10. But we should not overcorrect

There is an important counterpoint.

Suppose investigators eventually establish that:

the attacker repeatedly cited Mamdani;
he explicitly said Mamdani's speeches radicalized him;
he adopted a specific violent interpretation of Mamdani's statements;
he planned the attack because of those statements;
investigators establish a direct causal relationship.

Then the analysis would change substantially.

A public figure's rhetoric can contribute to radicalization or incitement in particular circumstances.

So the correct position is not:

“A politician can never influence terrorism.”

It is:

“Influence and causation must be demonstrated rather than inferred merely from admiration or ideological association.”

That is the intellectually defensible position.

11. There is a second possible fallacy: guilt by association

The post is effectively saying:

Terrorist → admired Mamdani → therefore Mamdani is implicated in terrorism.

That resembles:

Person A associates with criminal B → therefore A shares B's criminality.

But association alone proves very little.

Imagine the reverse:

A terrorist admired Churchill.

Would Churchill therefore become responsible for terrorism?

Obviously not.

Or:

A terrorist admired a famous religious scholar.

That does not make the scholar responsible for the terrorist's actions unless additional evidence establishes a meaningful connection.

The same evidentiary rule must apply to Mamdani.

12. The politically important point

Because Mamdani is a current political figure, we should be particularly careful not to convert a factual investigation into a political accusation.

It is perfectly legitimate to investigate:

What has Mamdani actually said about 9/11, Israel, Hamas, terrorism and political violence?

It is also legitimate to ask:

What evidence exists that this attacker was influenced by those statements?

But those are evidence questions, not predetermined conclusions.

The current evidence I found establishes a serious aviation incident and an ongoing terrorism investigation; it does not establish the causal proposition that Mamdani's rhetoric motivated the attack.

13. My analytical judgment

I would characterize the post as containing a potentially legitimate factual lead but an unsupported causal conclusion.

Its legitimate question is:

Did the suspect admire Mamdani, and if so, what exactly did that admiration mean?

That deserves investigation.

Its unsupported leap is:

Because the suspect admired Mamdani, Mamdani helped cause his terrorist attack and is therefore “spreading terror.”

That conclusion does not follow from the evidence currently available to me.

The strongest description is therefore:

association → presented as causation → followed by transfer of responsibility.

And that is where your idea of projection becomes particularly useful.

In one sentence:

The post appears to project the terrorist's conduct onto Mamdani by converting the alleged terrorist's admiration for him into evidence of Mamdani's responsibility, without establishing the missing causal chain between the politician's words, the terrorist's interpretation of those words, his radicalization, and his decision to commit the attack.

And I would add one important qualification:

If later investigation establishes that Mamdani explicitly incited or materially motivated the attack, the assessment would have to change; at present, however, admiration or alleged ideological affinity alone cannot establish that conclusion.

That distinction—association, influence, incitement and causation are different evidentiary propositions—is the key to analyzing this post rigorously.

Search This Blog

Dr Sohail Ansari