Colorado socialist candidate called 9/11 terror attacks 'inevitable' due to US foreign policy

The Story At A Glance

• • Melat Kiros, a Democratic socialist, labeled the 9/11 and October 7 attacks as inevitable consequences of U.S. and Israeli foreign policy.


• • Kiros frames the Hamas massacre as a result of apartheid and calls for an arms embargo on Israel.


• • Her remarks have drawn intense criticism for justifying terrorism and expressing anti-Semitic views.

Context
Kiros is a 29 year old lawyer and PhD student challenging incumbent Diana DeGette in the 2026 Colorado primary. She previously lost employment at a New York law firm following her public criticism of responses to the Hamas attacks.

Christian Perspective
Kiros's rhetoric attempts to moralize mass murder by framing it as a systemic necessity. This worldview rejects the biblical reality of evil and the accountability of the individual for their violent actions. Blaming the victims of terror for their own slaughter is a direct affront to justice and the sanctity of life.

Implications
Allowing such rhetoric in leadership threatens the moral foundation of the nation by normalizing the justification of terrorism. It signals a shift where the protection of American lives is secondary to globalist political agendas. This undermines the duty of the state to defend its people against those who seek their destruction.

Broader Trends
This represents the radical leftward drift of the Democratic Party toward ideologies that prioritize foreign interests over American security. It also highlights the ongoing effort to subvert national identity through the promotion of globalist and anti-Western narratives. Such movements aim to weaken the social fabric by eroding respect for the nation and its history.

Takeaway
Americans must reject candidates who view national tragedies as mere political outcomes rather than acts of unprovoked evil. We must uphold an America First policy that prioritizes the safety and sovereignty of our own citizens above all else. True leadership requires a clear distinction between legitimate policy debate and the justification of slaughter.