Trumps tweet on Ilhan Omar

Dev1lXYZ

Member
Sep 1, 2017
604
333
220
If you were to stop bullying, I wouldn't need to "rush to someone's defense". I am not standing up for the oppressed, I am standing up against bullying behaviour. All you did was quoting things where @Nobody_Important was defending Omar from Trump's attack, specifically because of its form. I am pretty sure Omar is not a terrorist, so defending her is not terrorist apology. Omar may be a terrorist apologist herself, but half a sentence quoted by Trump in the video is hardly any kind of evidence for that, and even if she is a terrorist apologist, that is does not make @Nobody_Important one. Not objectively, not by his standards, not by any reasonable person's standard.

Trump didn’t attack Omar. He CORRECTED her. That’s the issue with this generation misinterpreting what an attack really is. When CORRECTIVE action is used nowadays gets a reaction like: someone call the courts-someone call the law-someone do something-I have been attacked!!!! It’s fucking lame and I guess I have to be the one to point that out. Omar had forgotten or knowingly omitted the facts in her statement. Trump CORRECTED her publically. Omar just needed the CORRECTION in video format with words that she as well as her audience could understand. She needs to UNDERSTAND that she cannot get away with that shit ever again, hence CORRECIVE action had to be taken. Trump LOVES the little Omar! All of her stupid little statements, gaffes, and theatrical victim card playing are bleeding votes. It’s like raining votes for him this week. Please Omar, keep going! Don’t you worry though- when Daddy Trump has to use his belt for CORRECTIVE action he does it with love.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,745
3,322
250
What about it? She called Stephen Miller a white nationalist and thats completely accurate. Even the guys own uncle thinks so.


There are no other semantic options.

The "too dumb" refers to people no knowing history and not seeing the similarities in ideology, rhetoric and policy between the Trump administration and straight up Nazis.
And because the people know nothing about Nazis ideology, rhetoric and policy, they think that this comparison is outrageous and just reflects the insanity of the people making it. Which makes sense when you, as so many American do, have a concept of Nazis that amounts to little more than quintessentially evil villainry, the entire ideology and its historical and societal context reduced to nothing more than a cartoonish evil caricature. When your understanding of Nazism ends there, its no wonder that you don't recognize the ideology popping up elsewhere.
We also don't always have to talk about Nazism. Fascist movements that functioned in just the same way are plentiful. They may not all have ended in a world war and genocide but that had nothing to do with the ideology but rather with the economic context. The more powerful a country, the more dangerous its fascism.

The "too blinded" refers to the people who hate "the other"(Muslims, immigrants, refugees, various minorities) and are so consumed by their hate that they assume it is a rational reaction to a realistic threat. From this perspective everyone who is calling out their hate has to have malicious intentions because not sharing their assessment of the threat must mean that they are a part of the threat.
A simple fallacy in which the entire position of the person in question is based on one wrong but emotionally charged assumption that isn't to be questioned.
This group of people has fallen victim to the right wing fear mongering that has been going on for years.
It didn't even start with Trump. Trump is merely the consequence.

Jon Stewart made this point very well here:

1:42 - 4:14
Quoting a comedian is a more damning repudiation of the stupidity of this argument than anything I could say.
 

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,347
138
550
munich
Yeah, the good old schtick of criticizing one very specific person for downplaying one of the worst terrorist attacks in recent history. How unfair!
Her point had nothing to do with 9/11, just as Muslims have nothing to do with 9/11.
The point she was making is that Muslims in the US faced stigmatization and civil rights issues because they were automatically associated with something(9/11) they had nothing to do with.

How exactly is that "downplaying" 9/11?


Also, many of Trumps best buddies and now biggest supporters, many of those who now attack Ilhan Omar on a regular basis, for years pushed conspiracy theories about 9/11 being an inside job. But thats just fighting for truth and not downplaying, isn't it?
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,745
3,322
250
Obvious propaganda is obvious.
Pretty sad the president resorts to this crap. Criticize and refute absolutely, but using 9/11 for some political points does an injustice to those who have died. An obvious appeal to emotion as well.

This would be like taking clips from Trump's Immigration speeches and playing Nazi Germany or KKK clips and pretending it wasn't propaganda to appeal to people's emotions.
Yes it's exactly like that.

It's EXACTLY like what democrats have been doing to Trump for the past 3 years. 😆 Now you give a shit?
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,117
1,731
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Trump didn’t attack Omar. He CORRECTED her. That’s the issue with this generation misinterpreting what an attack really is. When CORRECTIVE action is used nowadays gets a reaction like: someone call the courts-someone call the law-someone do something-I have been attacked!!!! It’s fucking lame and I guess I have to be the one to point that out. Omar had forgotten or knowingly omitted the facts in her statement. Trump CORRECTED her publically. Omar just needed the CORRECTION in video format with words that she as well as her audience could understand. She needs to UNDERSTAND that she cannot get away with that shit ever again, hence CORRECIVE action had to be taken. Trump LOVES the little Omar! All of her stupid little statements, gaffes, and theatrical victim card playing are bleeding votes. It’s like raining votes for him this week. Please Omar, keep going! Don’t you worry though- when Daddy Trump has to use his belt for CORRECTIVE action he does it with love.
Quoting half a sentence and then showing some videos from eleventh september 2001 is not correcting anyone. Well, maybe she did say something infactual about eleventh september attacks, but we do not get to hear it in the video. Assuming she is talking about it, she is doing so in a flippant way, and it is fine to criticise (or, if you do it more strongly, attack) her for that, but the form used is tabloid level and not adequate for the most powerful man in the world. What Trump put after her minisule excerpt was not a correction of any infactual statement of her though (Even though there seems to be an infactual statement in close proximity, he does not call that one out. And how would he, with his level of historic knowledge), but instead he attacks the part that is not infactual, but merely insensitively worded, and yes, playing down the severity by using inadequate (though factually not incorrect) wording.
 

Dev1lXYZ

Member
Sep 1, 2017
604
333
220
Her point had nothing to do with 9/11, just as Muslims have nothing to do with 9/11.
The point she was making is that Muslims in the US faced stigmatization and civil rights issues because they were automatically associated with something(9/11) they had nothing to do with.

How exactly is that "downplaying" 9/11?


Also, many of Trumps best buddies and now biggest supporters, many of those who now attack Ilhan Omar on a regular basis, for years pushed conspiracy theories about 9/11 being an inside job. But thats just fighting for truth and not downplaying, isn't it?
 

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,347
138
550
munich
Quoting a comedian is a more damning repudiation of the stupidity of this argument than anything I could say.
Forget the that this is an interview at the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago and Jon Stewart is being interviewed as a private man here.
Very pathetic of you to just dismiss the entire argument because the guy was paid to make jokes once.


Can you articulate your thoughts or is that all you got?
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,509
5,973
475
Her point had nothing to do with 9/11
False, she was clearly referencing 9/11:

“CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”

...just as Muslims have nothing to do with 9/11.
Sure, the attacks were clearly not religiously motivated,

The point she was making is that Muslims in the US faced stigmatization and civil rights issues because they were automatically associated with something(9/11) they had nothing to do with.
By supporting an organization that had ties to Islamic militant groups during that time:

The U.S. government has never charged it with terrorism, but it was named as an “unindicted co-conspirator or joint venturer” in the Holy Land Foundation case — an Islamic charity that in 2008 was convicted of funding Islamist militant groups.
Not to mention the fact that the civil rights of every american citizen were severely impacted by that attack (Patriot Act).
 

Silas Lang

Member
Mar 8, 2012
1,237
40
470
Yes it's exactly like that.

It's EXACTLY like what democrats have been doing to Trump for the past 3 years. 😆 Now you give a shit?
Glad you agree this is propaganda! I have always gave a shit, I just don't obsessly watch over politics. Post some videos from Democratic leaders like that and I will call it dumb too.
 

Dev1lXYZ

Member
Sep 1, 2017
604
333
220
Forget the that this is an interview at the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago and Jon Stewart is being interviewed as a private man here.
Very pathetic of you to just dismiss the entire argument because the guy was paid to make jokes once.




Can you articulate your thoughts or is that all you got?

Sure, I’ll articulate my thoughts for you: every part of your post was incorrect. Hence the double take picture. I don’t think anyone on this forum can argue my point on it. I’ll let the others correct you with the facts.


See post #110

P.S. You mad bro? 😂😂😂😂😂😂
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
2,745
3,322
250
You are intentionally ignoring the rest of his post. Read the the rest and then try and make your jokes.
Read the rest, still laughing

Forget the that this is an interview at the Institute of Politics at the University of Chicago and Jon Stewart is being interviewed as a private man here.
Very pathetic of you to just dismiss the entire argument because the guy was paid to make jokes once.




Can you articulate your thoughts or is that all you got?
Oh please, I've heard this crap before a thousand times since the election.

"It's the fault of talk radio and Rush Limbaugh. Everyone is just scared(except me)"

What's cute is you pretending this shit is profound and deep. It fucking isn't. Your video has a comedian comparing Trump to a boiled ham.

Man, why aren't I taking this guy seriously?🙄
 

NANOMACHINES SON

Neo Member
Feb 27, 2019
1
0
80
I'm going to watch Omar's full speech, but at first glance it seems really dishonest to take a part of someone's speech out of context to push an agenda.
 

Dev1lXYZ

Member
Sep 1, 2017
604
333
220
The summary of the Trump CORRECTION to Omar........in moving picture format...for today’s generation!


 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,978
15,206
665
USA
dunpachi.com
No you trying to arbitrarily apply months old posts in order to defend your own lies and baseless assumptions shows that you have no standards.
Tantrum harder. It's funny when you blame me for the things you're guilty of. Besides, I thought you were "done here". Is your own ego so bruised that you can't let it go anymore?

You know I don't support violence or terrorism
Don't make assumptions about what I know, as huge of a challenge it is for mindreaders like yourself. Your past statements have led me to believe you do support both violence and terrorism as long as it is performed by the "right side". Whether we're talking about your statements about Kavanaugh, or Smollett, or Covington, or your defense of Omar in other threads and in here... a pattern emerges.

and yet you are still willing to claim I do just for the fun of it.
I can't imagine getting all this shoved back in your face is very fun, now that you mention it. But if you're implying that I don't take you seriously, bingo! I've made that very clear in the past.

And this is not the first time you have lied and assumed your way into attacking and insulting me. I have called you out on your lies before and it never seems to matter. You lie. You twist my words.
Citation needed. Just kidding: I won't play the game of "prove it!" since I know these are more empty tantrums. A helpful hint: if you're going to make accusations against a user, maybe come with quotes like I did. At least one of us is putting in the effort.

You take old posts out of context.
Translation: don't hold me accountable! Don't hold Omar accountable! Don't hold my ideology accountable! Don't bring up past things I said to prove your point. That's dirty.

All in an effort to avoid admitting that you are wrong
But I think I'm right. Obviously. Why would I arbitrarily admit I'm wrong? You're welcome to prove me wrong or point out where I'm mistaken. The constant cowardice and saying "nooo! Stop catcalling me!" is hilarious coming from you.

and that you are lying. Which is frankly pathetic.
Even I admit when I am wrong, but you can't ever bring yourself to do it.
Citation needed. :pie_invert:

I honestly thought you were better than that once,
Is this the discard phase of the narcissist breakdown, where you play the victim and try to stack up sympathy? "I used to have such high hopes for you. Look how gracious and partisan I am". The act is cute but I've seen it plenty of times before.

but you have proven you are no better than the worst this section has to offer.
So not just smearing me, but "this section" as well. You're really having a breakdown, aren't you?

I'm done putting up with it. You have shown yourself to be a waste of time and energy on my part. I won't do it anymore.
I thought you were "done here". Now you're done putting up with it? Does this mean you'll finally start defending your standpoints instead of fleeing the conversation? I'm guilty of doing that as well. We all get fed up with a conversation. I just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.

If you were to stop bullying, I wouldn't need to "rush to someone's defense". I am not standing up for the oppressed, I am standing up against bullying behaviour.
Then report me to the mods, or come to the table with a better argument. I won't be shamed or browbeaten by flimsy accusations of "bullying". This is an internet forum, not a Native American drum-circle on the front steps of the Lincoln Memorial. No one is bullying anyone.

All you did was quoting things where @Nobody_Important was defending Omar from Trump's attack, specifically because of its form. I am pretty sure Omar is not a terrorist, so defending her is not terrorist apology. Omar may be a terrorist apologist herself, but half a sentence quoted by Trump in the video is hardly any kind of evidence for that, and even if she is a terrorist apologist, that is does not make @Nobody_Important one. Not objectively, not by his standards, not by any reasonable person's standard.
An appeal to "any reasonable person's standard". Are you saying I'm not reasonable and therefore my argument isn't worth consideration? There's a logical fallacy for that.

Help, Yoshi is bullying me by arguing in bad faith! :messenger_grinning_squinting:
 

Dev1lXYZ

Member
Sep 1, 2017
604
333
220
Quoting half a sentence and then showing some videos from eleventh september 2001 is not correcting anyone. Well, maybe she did say something infactual about eleventh september attacks, but we do not get to hear it in the video. Assuming she is talking about it, she is doing so in a flippant way, and it is fine to criticise (or, if you do it more strongly, attack) her for that, but the form used is tabloid level and not adequate for the most powerful man in the world. What Trump put after her minisule excerpt was not a correction of any infactual statement of her though (Even though there seems to be an infactual statement in close proximity, he does not call that one out. And how would he, with his level of historic knowledge), but instead he attacks the part that is not infactual, but merely insensitively worded, and yes, playing down the severity by using inadequate (though factually not incorrect) wording.
I’m pretty sure this will be the last time Omar says it publically. CORRECTION=MADE
The correction was adequate enough for the President to get the point across. CORRECTION=MADE
The ‘minuscule excerpt’ had a whole lot to say about where the mind set of Omar is.....and it really isn’t in a good place for a member of Congress to be publically stating it. It’s about time for her to start packing her bags and be out on the street. I don’t CAIR where she goes but I’m sure she can find someone out there who will CAIR to foot her living expenses aside from taxpayers.
 

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,347
138
550
munich
False, she was clearly referencing 9/11:

“CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”
She referenced 9/11, but she was talking about the loss of civil liberties and the stigmatization Muslims experienced afterwards.
The argument was about this and not 9/11.
How white people try to make this about them again is ridiculous and also extremely intellectually dishonest.


Sure, the attacks were clearly not religiously motivated,
So 1.3 billion Muslims have to answer for it?
Do all Christians have to answer for christian terrorist attacks? Do they have to answer for priests abusing kids?
No kin liability, no guilt by association.
But when its about Muslims all that is fair game.

That was Omars point and it went right over y'all heads because you are too dense to listen.

By supporting an organization that had ties to Islamic militant groups during that time:
Apart from not being related to 9/11, its quite naive to make that points in an attempted attack on Ilhan Omar when the US government themselves funded virtually every militant Islamic group at some point in time and is still doing business with Saudi Arabia who were the main sponsors of the 9/11 terrorists, to the point where they are being taken to court for their involvement.
But Trump is all chummy with them.

May it be that you are just trying to construct something against Ilhan Omar because you don't like her and you don't want Muslims in US politics? Because the mental acrobatics and double standards you are employing here sure make it seem like it.

Not to mention the fact that the civil rights of every american citizen were severely impacted by that attack (Patriot Act).
True, but really irrelevant to her point and stating it like that also fails it to recognize the fact that Muslims were affected in much graver ways by this than white Americans.




Oh please, I've heard this crap before a thousand times since the election.

"It's the fault of talk radio and Rush Limbaugh. Everyone is just scared(except me)"

What's cute is you pretending this shit is profound and deep. It fucking isn't. Your video has a comedian comparing Trump to a boiled ham.

Man, why aren't I taking this guy seriously?🙄
Okay, then.
Why is Trump constantly talking about the wall even though the problem its supposed to fix has barely any impact on anyone in the US?
Why is Trump constantly pushing fear campaigns, like for example before the midterms when suddenly everyone was talking about "caravans" of rapists and murderers and terrorists marching towards the US, a massive and urgent threat(!!!), only for the story to never be mentioned again as soon as the vote was over.
Why is Trump acting like islamic terrorism is this great threat in the US when right wing terrorism is the MUCH bigger problem, yet he doesn't even recognize it, even defends the perpetrators and cuts the budget to prosecute and investigate it?

You may say that his entire platform isn't based on instilling irrational and identity based fears in people, but you are just wrong because thats exactly what it is and if you compare it to any other country where leaders created fascist movements, it always work in exactly the same way.
Same topics, same rhetoric, same arguments.
The only thing that changes are the concepts of identity and the roles they take on and obviously the scapegoats change as well.


Just like Germany needed proper denazification after 1945, the US will need proper detrumpification after his presidency.
Its integral for the US to recognize that they legit flirted with fascism here and that almost 60 million voters happily supported a fascist platform.
But just like the US never addressed its moral failures so far, I have little hope it will do so this time.
 
Last edited:

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,492
1,328
360
Norway
Quoting half a sentence and then showing some videos from eleventh september 2001 is not correcting anyone. Well, maybe she did say something infactual about eleventh september attacks, but we do not get to hear it in the video. Assuming she is talking about it, she is doing so in a flippant way, and it is fine to criticise (or, if you do it more strongly, attack) her for that, but the form used is tabloid level and not adequate for the most powerful man in the world. What Trump put after her minisule excerpt was not a correction of any infactual statement of her though (Even though there seems to be an infactual statement in close proximity, he does not call that one out. And how would he, with his level of historic knowledge), but instead he attacks the part that is not infactual, but merely insensitively worded, and yes, playing down the severity by using inadequate (though factually not incorrect) wording.
The quote is honestly as presented more than full enough to be criticized in-context. I checked out the original video, in which she pointed out attack on civil liberties after 9/11 (which was a good thing to point out, but her use of "some people and something" in that context, ugh...). But her use of "some people" and "something" can certainly be criticized here as a part insensitivity or possibly deflection. I can imagine why she did it, for even possible non-nefarious reasons, but it's definitely not something she can easily brush off either.
Trump attacked that insensitivity, the avoidance of mentioning who or what happened (which comes across either as deflection or ignorance, as it was completely unneeded in her sentence), by pointing out the incident and also using it as an emotional appeal. It was an effective use of rhetoric on his part and it's definitely not an incitement to violence.
Imagine the reaction if you got Trump saying "[The UN or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] was created after WW2 after some people did something". Oh, the fury that would've brought. Nations and their leaders would line up condemning him.

This is way too heated, with someone putting way too much into this. Had everyone been rational, you'd have republicans and democrats saying "Ihlan, you fucked up" and Ihlan going "Yes, I fucked up" and people would move on. It's not really a thing for democrats to win either, so surprised they're trying to attack Trump in a moment he's not making a fool of himself on Twitter. They should've ignored it and let it die down instead of feeding into it.
Surprised that left-wing people here are spending so much energy on it. Would be better suited letting die, as it's a terrible hill to die on. Perhaps they'd get lucky and Trump would overreach and say something stupid again, letting them sweep in. It's like Cruz's 9/11 gaffe. No point doubling down on it, better wait out the clock or hope Trump stumbles.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,287
3,766
410
Regarding the Ilhan Omar "some people", I'd say it was definitely a conscious choice. "Some people" instead of "muslim extremists" or "radical islamists" and the ease of which she said it, without hiccups. Why she chose so, however, I have no idea. Could be for good reasons, could be for bad reasons (after watching the original in context a couple of times, I lean slightly towards the bad). Still very clumsy and not a way to look good. She's right about civil liberties being a concern after 9/11 though, both in regards to muslims which she speaks about, but also people in general.

Don't see the point in harping about it, but it's certainly not inciting violence to use that clip in conjunction with 9/11. Just manufactured drama, trying to deflect and score political points.

Ilhan Omar seems to try to be as defensive and deflective as possible, further exampled by the video Evilore posted, from about 12:13 in it. I also think people are ridiculous in trying to brand Ilhan Omar as "evil", because there's no proof of that and from listening to her speeches I'd say there's nothing indicating that at all.
I will say it because I don't think anyone else will, but I think she said it that way because most people in the audience probably don't believe Muslims did 9/11. Either they think it was an inside job, a frame up, or by DA JEWS. Probably if she would of said Muslims extremist did a horrific terrorist act she would of been booed off the stage.

She describes the NZ massacre as a tragic tragic nightmare so she knows how to describe a horrific event in proper terms. But since NZ was an attack on muslims she gives it gravitas. I wonder what the reaction would be from Omar and AOC and Tlaib if someone called the NZ shooting something done by some people ?
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,287
3,766
410
Her point had nothing to do with 9/11, just as Muslims have nothing to do with 9/11.
The point she was making is that Muslims in the US faced stigmatization and civil rights issues because they were automatically associated with something(9/11) they had nothing to do with.

How exactly is that "downplaying" 9/11?


Also, many of Trumps best buddies and now biggest supporters, many of those who now attack Ilhan Omar on a regular basis, for years pushed conspiracy theories about 9/11 being an inside job. But thats just fighting for truth and not downplaying, isn't it?
Well as a member of congress she has a duty to give 9/11 the gravitas and respect it deserves. She could of easily made a point by saying Saudis (who she hates) attacked the US in a horrific terrorist attack and regular peaceful muslims were stigmatized by it.

Also CAIR was not founded after 9/11 it was founded in 1994, but she even fooled you with her incorrect time line. Its a bit concerning that someone takes money from CAIR, parrots their propaganda as if she was paid off by Benjamins, but knows so little history about the group that is funding her.
 

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,347
138
550
munich
Well as a member of congress she has a duty to give 9/11 the gravitas and respect it deserves.
Why? If this were a memorial service then sure, but she was simply making a point that referenced 9/11 and I don't see the reason why she should be required to mention it in any specific way in this case.
She clearly used the "some people did something" line to illustrate how American Muslims were arbitrarily connected to something they had nothing to do with.

She could of easily made a point by saying Saudis (who she hates) attacked the US in a horrific terrorist attack and regular peaceful muslims were stigmatized by it.
That would have been wrong, though.
Apart from not all terrorists being Saudis, this would again include an entire countries population and she would be doing exactly the thing she tries to call out.

Also CAIR was not founded after 9/11 it was founded in 1994, but she even fooled you with her incorrect time line.
I don't think the founding date of CAIR matters in any way for her argument.


Its a bit concerning that someone takes money from CAIR, parrots their propaganda as if she was paid off by Benjamins, but knows so little history about the group that is funding her.
What kind of standard is that? I would assume that in 99% of cases US politicians do not know when the groups who are funding them were founded. Because such facts rarely matter, just like it didn't matter in Omars remarks.
She made a mistake when it comes to this, but it didn't affect the validity of the argument she made.
 
Last edited:

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,287
3,766
410
Why? If this were a memorial service then sure, but she was simply making a point that referenced 9/11 and I don't see the reason why she should be required to mention it in any specific way in this case.
She clearly used the "some people did something" line to illustrate how American Muslims were arbitrarily connected to something they had nothing to do with.
Because she is a member of congress and speaking at this event she represents the American government and congress. Just like it would be disrespectful to refer to the NZ massacre as someone did something. Normal decorum of a sitting member of congress requires her to give the proper gravitas to horrific situations. If she can't handle that then maybe the job isn't cut out for her.

And actually saying some people did something blurs the lines of the point she is trying to make, because she isn't connecting 9/11 to Muslims, in a way she is almost dismissing that Muslims had anything to do with it. And seeing her audience that probably played a lot better since I don't doubt most probably don't believe Islamic extremist did 9/11.

Why can she describe the NZ massacre as a tragic tragic nightmare, but 9/11 as some people did something?

That would have been wrong, though.
Apart from not all terrorists being Saudis, this would again include an entire countries population and she would be doing exactly the thing she tries to call out.
Well that was an example, she could of said Muslim extremist, islamic extremist, Saudi extremist etc, not just some people. I only used Saudi because she goes hard against Saudi and this would of been a good oppurtunity to raise awarness against the Saudi's which she tweets about. But litterally anything would of been better than "some people", unless of course she knows her audience and knows that implying Muslims did 9/11 would get her booed off stage.

I don't think the founding date of CAIR matters in any way for her argument.
It matters alot, since her argument is CAIR was founded because after 9/11 Muslim civil liberties were being taken away. CAIR was found nearly a decade earlier to be the propaganda arm of Hamas, created by the Palestinian council at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood. So ya it is pretty important to her point that some people (probably not Muslims wink wink) did something so CAIR was formed out of thin air to protect Muslims. Since thats not true it makes her argument pretty weak.

And Omar didn't lose any civil liberties, she actually GAINED them. Considering that Congress changed a 200 year old rule to allow her to wear her Hijab in congress. And for someone who seems to have issues with antisemetic tropes and offending Jews its rich of her to complain when 60% of all relegious hate crimes are committed against Jews.


What kind of standard is that? I would assume that in 99% of cases US politicians do not know when the groups who are funding them were founded. Because such facts rarely matter, just like it didn't matter in Omars remarks.
She she made a mistake when it comes to this, but it doesn't affect the validity of the argument she made.
Ya I guess we shouldn't care if congress people know where there money is coming from. As long as they take the money and parrot the script that the lobby group bought them to say.

And as I said not knowing the history of CAIR invalidates her argument that CAIR was set up after 9/11 to protect Muslim civil liberties. Her whole argument is wrong so ya it does affect the validity of her argument.
 
Last edited:

strange headache

Fluctuat nec mergitur
Jan 14, 2018
1,509
5,973
475
She referenced 9/11, but she was talking about the loss of civil liberties and the stigmatization Muslims experienced afterwards. The argument was about this and not 9/11.
The criticism is how she referenced 9/11. She referred to it by "some people did something", implying that she is downplaying the horrific nature of that terrorist attack. It was never about the argument that she was trying to make, but how she referenced 9/11. It's really not hard to understand.

So 1.3 billion Muslims have to answer for it?
Do all Christians have to answer for christian terrorist attacks? Do they have to answer for priests abusing kids?
No kin liability, no guilt by association.
But when its about Muslims all that is fair game.

That was Omars point and it went right over y'all heads because you are too dense to listen.
Well yes, Christianity as a collective worldview with a hierarchical centralized organizational structure, has to recognize its own shortcomings when it comes to its historical past (inquisition, witch hunts, crusades) and its present issues (gender equality, homophobia, etc..). Only like that can Christianity undertake the necessary reforms to make the core tenants of its ideology compatible with modern values. Why should it be any different for Islam? I make no distinction there.

If you want to call yourself a proponent of any ideology really, you have to recognize its possible downfalls, be it capitalism, communism, white supremacy or any other worldview. It doesn't mean that you share an individual guilt, but it does imply that you at least recognize these issues and support necessary reform. Aren't you the ones who are always reminding white people and their western civilizations to recognize the mistakes of their past? So why not here?

What people are criticizing is that Omar is not doing that when it comes to her religion. She is not recognizing that Islam has a major problem with extremism and the various other issues related to that particular religion (discrimination of women and homosexuals for example).

Your are the one too dense to listen, because what people criticize by her choice of words it that Omar shields her religion from criticism by misrepresenting it as an islamophobic attack.

Apart from not being related to 9/11, its quite naive to make that points in an attempted attack on Ilhan Omar when the US government themselves funded virtually every militant Islamic group at some point in time and is still doing business with Saudi Arabia who were the main sponsors of the 9/11 terrorists, to the point where they are being taken to court for their involvement.
Oh spare me the whataboutism. This is not about the war crimes of the US government, but Omar's hypocritical views on Islamic terrorism:
  • Fact is that she supported an organization that had ties with militant Islamic groups
  • Fact is that she talked about Al Qaeda in a sympathetic and apologetic manner
  • Fact is that she downplayed 9/11 by referring to it in that particularly dishonest way
This whole discussion has absolutely nothing to do with law abiding Muslim citizens who deserve equal civil rights. Nobody is contesting that, so stop derailing the discussion.
 
Last edited:

DeepEnigma

Member
Dec 3, 2013
19,631
14,377
585
Stop feeding the troll. His patterns are just to say the opposite and stretch the narratives.
 

TrainedRage

Member
Feb 3, 2018
3,708
3,951
370
33
USA
I agree.


It's blatant and transparent propaganda against Omar and Muslims. So it falls completely flat in my view, but I'm not surprised to see his base eating it up. This would be like the Left taking a video of one of Trump's immigration speeches and then playing it alongside video of a Nuremburg rally or a KKK ceremony. And if that were to happen I seriously doubt many people in here would continue to see no problem with it.


Its a dangerous tactic and all its doing is hoping to reach viewers patriotism rather than their brains. I am used to this section not caring about Muslims or how they are treated, but this is blatantly dishonest propaganda that has been directed at Omar and Muslims in general by Trump's administration and people here are apparently totally okay with that. Its fucking disgusting even for the politics section.
Its almost as bad as insinuating the acting president is Hitler 2.0... Almost. But nice outrage. +2 points and a pat on the back for 'ya!
 

bucyou

Member
Feb 3, 2018
774
829
235
How fucked does your view of the world have to be to equate this tweet to calling for her murder?
 

1.21Gigawatts

can't help talking about pedophiles
Nov 24, 2012
8,347
138
550
munich
Normal decorum of a sitting member of congress requires her to give the proper gravitas to horrific situations. If she can't handle that then maybe the job isn't cut out for her.
You are applying a standard to her that isn't even applying to the president.


And actually saying some people did something blurs the lines of the point she is trying to make, because she isn't connecting 9/11 to Muslims, in a way she is almost dismissing that Muslims had anything to do with it.
Yes, because Muslims didn't have anything to do with it. Just like Christians didn't have anything to do with Anders Breivik shooting 70 kids in Norway.

The difference is that you know hundreds or thousands of Christians and know that its doesn't make sense to connect them to Anders Breivik in any way just because he said he is fighting for a "monocultural christian Europe".

But you don't know many Muslims, so you don't realize how ridiculous it is to connect a bunch of terrorists to 1.3 billion Muslims just because the terrorists were radicalized in an Islamic context.

Well that was an example, she could of said Muslim extremist, islamic extremist, Saudi extremist etc, not just some people. I only used Saudi because she goes hard against Saudi and this would of been a good oppurtunity to raise awarness against the Saudi's which she tweets about. But litterally anything would of been better than "some people", unless of course she knows her audience and knows that implying Muslims did 9/11 would get her booed off stage.
She could have said "terrorists committed a terrorist attack", but I don't think the way she phrased it is worthy of criticism, especially not in the context of a verbally delivered speech.
But even in an essay I wouldn't have marked it. Usually it would have been marked because it lacks specificity, but her point here was to illustrate the lack of specificity when it comes to general judgement of Muslims in the US.
Specifying by using "Muslim/islamic extremist" would have defeated her own point.

It matters alot, since her argument is CAIR was founded because after 9/11 Muslim civil liberties were being taken away.
Thats not her point. Thats a statement she makes alongside her argument. And the argument is that Muslims have been stigmatized and seen their civil liberties taken away to an extent.

I always though it was part of basic reading comprehension to spot the structure of an argument. Whats critical to it and what isn't, whats part of it and what isn't. Apparently not.

CAIR was found nearly a decade earlier to be the propaganda arm of Hamas
That is wrong.

created by the Palestinian council at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood.
That is also wrong and actually also clashes with the previous thing you said.

Also keep in mind that Palestine is suppressed to a point where its politics have becomes nothing but a charade of different types of extremists. If you want to support Palestinians you will at some point have to go through groups that in some form are connected to terrorism.
The definition of terrorism is important here, though. Because Palestinian aggression towards Israel is constantly filed under terrorism, while Israeli aggression towards Palestine isn't.

In any way, this topic is why too complex to make cheap shots like that she's supporting terrorist groups.


And Omar didn't lose any civil liberties, she actually GAINED them.
I doubt she was talking about herself in the present tense.

Considering that Congress changed a 200 year old rule to allow her to wear her Hijab in congress.
Oh how noble of them to finally allow something thats a basic part of the ideal of religious freedom the founding fathers have put into the constitution centuries ago.

And for someone who seems to have issues with antisemetic tropes and offending Jews its rich of her to complain when 60% of all relegious hate crimes are committed against Jews.
That doesn't make any sense.
She is criticizing Israels attitude towards Palestine(which btw. is also in clear violation of international law) and she is criticizing Israels far right positions. In no way does that mean that she supports or incites antisemitic hate crimes.
And in no way does it mean that she isn't in a position to complain about Islamophobia and discrimination and stigmatization against Muslims in the US.


Ya I guess we shouldn't care if congress people know where there money is coming from.
You can know where the money is coming from without knowing the exact date this group was founded.

As long as they take the money and parrot the script that the lobby group bought them to say.
Quite remarkable to say this about a Congresswomen who ran on a platform that prominently included campaign finance reform and who's second largest contributor is literally called "End Citizens United"(which is the SCOTUS decision that allowed corporations to bribe politicians and the very reason for the mess the US is in).
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00043581

And as I said not knowing the history of CAIR invalidates her argument that CAIR was set up after 9/11 to protect Muslim civil liberties. Her whole argument is wrong so ya it does affect the validity of her argument.
That wasn't her argument, though.
The argument was that due to stigmatization and wrongful connection to terrorist attacks Muslims are facing discriminations and an erosion of their civil liberties in the US.
She said CAIR was founded to fight this development after 9/11 and this is wrong.
CAIR was founded to fight this development, but even though they increased their work after 9/11 because the problem Muslims faced grew rapidly, they were actually founded years before 9/11.
So yeah, she made a mistake, but that mistake wasn't related to her argument about Muslims facing these problems in the US and CAIR fighting it.

It's a petty attempt at discrediting her argument without having to actually engage in it.
 

Ulysses 31

Member
Nov 24, 2013
3,101
996
385



9/11: Some people who did something.
New Zealand attack: Tragic, tragic nightmare that happened to Muslims.

:goog_unsure::goog_unsure::goog_unsure:
 
Last edited:

pramod

Member
Oct 24, 2017
1,542
1,223
290
Quoting half a sentence and then showing some videos from eleventh september 2001 is not correcting anyone. Well, maybe she did say something infactual about eleventh september attacks, but we do not get to hear it in the video. Assuming she is talking about it, she is doing so in a flippant way, and it is fine to criticise (or, if you do it more strongly, attack) her for that, but the form used is tabloid level and not adequate for the most powerful man in the world.
Trump has caught on to the fact that we are living in the Age of Memes now, the left still don't seem to want to accept that. Maybe because they are so bad at it?
 
Last edited:

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
2,903
3,320
265
like Trump often does, she should have chosen her words more carefully.

again, Trump used a very similar "some people" when talking about Charlottesville and the entire media painted him to be a full supporter of all Nazis. people will run with a bad faith take on whatever you say.
 

Boss Mog

Member
Dec 12, 2013
4,021
2,490
440
The worst part isn't how she said "some people did something", it's how she was smiling while she said it.
 

Dev1lXYZ

Member
Sep 1, 2017
604
333
220
I’m going to take this a little further. Omar sounds like a Muppet. Literally like she was put together at the Jim Henson Workshop. Same with Cortez. Omar speaks like someone literally has a hand up her ass and is moving her mouth to a script. It’s really strange, especially when she tries to speak with some kind of emotional inflection.


“Come home Ilan.”
 

CatLady

Member
Jun 12, 2018
494
816
210
I think the most egregious thing about "some people did something" is that it shows a complete lack of sympathy or empathy by a sitting congresswoman for almost 3000 Americans murdered in the 9/11 terrorist attack. Her only regrets appear to be that Muslims, like ALL Americans after 9/11 lost some civil liberties.
 

rinnfortehwin

Neo Member
Feb 5, 2019
2
2
70
Can someone explain this "inciting violence" thing that is going around from Trump's tweet? I don't get it.
Dude, these idiots think that speech is literal violence. Hence, its okay for you to wear black masks and attack people and destroy property at a Ben Shapiro speech at a campus. These guys are crazy and the sad thing is there's a whole lot of them out there.
 

infinitys_7th

Member
Oct 1, 2006
3,649
3,251
1,090
She also described them as "predisposed victims."
She did more than that - she is implying that all ISIS fighters are victims of the "undergirding infrastructure", which she vaguely established by her earlier comparison of ISIS recruits to drug addicts in terms of how they should be "treated".

You know, because most drug addicts perform acts of terrorism and war crimes.
 

Patriots7

Member
Jul 15, 2008
2,728
1
755
Wow. The liberals are totally losing their minds over this. Trump has really hit them hard.

Taking her speech out of context? You mean like how the left took "some are rapists", "good folks on both sides", and "grab their pussy" out of context?

Womp womp. Sorry libs. Not even your leader Pelosi is going to help you on this one.
What context could justify Trump bragging that his celebrity status allows him to sexually assault women?
 

Panda1

Member
Jan 12, 2010
755
233
720
Classic case of a woman/minority that wants to be treated exactly as a privileged white cis male - then cries about how horrible it is when treated the same.
Its also made even better by all the left-wingers projecting their racist and white saviour guilt making it an identity issue. I also love how she is a magnet to the whole of the Democrats trying to be woke by association when she is a basic bitch that really has fuck all to say.
 

cryptoadam

... and he cannot lie
Feb 21, 2018
4,287
3,766
410
You are applying a standard to her that isn't even applying to the president.
So you mean the president is never attacked for the things he says? LOL


Yes, because Muslims didn't have anything to do with it. Just like Christians didn't have anything to do with Anders Breivik shooting 70 kids in Norway.

The difference is that you know hundreds or thousands of Christians and know that its doesn't make sense to connect them to Anders Breivik in any way just because he said he is fighting for a "monocultural christian Europe".

But you don't know many Muslims, so you don't realize how ridiculous it is to connect a bunch of terrorists to 1.3 billion Muslims just because the terrorists were radicalized in an Islamic context.
The hijackers were memebers of Al-Qeda an ISLAMIC EXTREMIST GROUP, and they were all Muslim. Now I am not blaming all Muslims for their actions, but don't deny that the terrorist were Islamic terrorists, thats silly.

And don't act like you know who I know. I have eaten plenty of EID feasts, and worked with many many Muslims, one was even my partner on a small business we started together. I also make sure the Muslims that work under me get to go to Juma on Fridays. So ya don't assume you know the company I keep. Nor try to create a strawman that I am saying ALL MUSLIMS committed 9/11.

She could have said "terrorists committed a terrorist attack", but I don't think the way she phrased it is worthy of criticism, especially not in the context of a verbally delivered speech.
But even in an essay I wouldn't have marked it. Usually it would have been marked because it lacks specificity, but her point here was to illustrate the lack of specificity when it comes to general judgement of Muslims in the US.
Specifying by using "Muslim/islamic extremist" would have defeated her own point.
The way she phrased is worthy of criticism, just if a white guy went to the NAACP and said blacks have it bad because 200 years ago some people did something to blacks in Africa. I remember Nordtham from Virginia called Black slaves indetidure servents and he caught a lot of flak for that. Her description of the NZ massacre vs 9/11 shows she can use words properly.

And if you are a teach I really hope you would of maked it down. Since the whole point of her speech was that Muslims are victimized and oppressed, so CAIR was formed after 9/11 to protect their civil liberties. Since that is WRONG I would fail her and mark her down for that.

I think she missed a great chance to make a point, but since she wants to play victicm and pretend Muslims are 2nd class citizens, she glossed over that point. Would of been easy to say Extremist did 9/11, but they aren't real Muslims like those in this room who don't support those types of acts.

Thats not her point. Thats a statement she makes alongside her argument. And the argument is that Muslims have been stigmatized and seen their civil liberties taken away to an extent.



I always though it was part of basic reading comprehension to spot the structure of an argument. Whats critical to it and what isn't, whats part of it and what isn't. Apparently not.
Yes that was her point. You do realize she was the key note speaker at a CAIR event right? Her point in her speech was Muslims have it bad, but CAIR is here to help protect Muslims. So saying CAIR was formed after 9/11 to protect their civil liberties is wrong and a lie. As a KEY NOTE SPEAKER she should know these basic facts.

Nope its correct, do some research and you will see. Here is a nice PDF that can help you

This was uncovered in the HLF trial and thanks to the wire tapping of the Philly meeting in 93

In the course of that trial, FBI Agent Laura Burns testified about, and helped explain, the transcripts of wiretap surveillance conducted in the course of two planning sessions leading up to the organizational meeting of CAIR held in Philadelphia in October 1993 and during the meeting itself. Specifically, she presented proof that CAIR’s mission was to assist “Sister Samah,” its founders’ hardly opaque code-name for Hamas, as the prospect of its terror designation loomed.
Don't be like Omar and be ignorant to the foundings of CAIR. Hopefully you will at least know the proper date it was founded LOL.


Also keep in mind that Palestine is suppressed to a point where its politics have becomes nothing but a charade of different types of extremists. If you want to support Palestinians you will at some point have to go through groups that in some form are connected to terrorism.
The definition of terrorism is important here, though. Because Palestinian aggression towards Israel is constantly filed under terrorism, while Israeli aggression towards Palestine isn't.

In any way, this topic is why too complex to make cheap shots like that she's supporting terrorist groups.
Hamas is a designated terrorist organization. The MB is in many countries even the UAE funny enough. CAIR was named in the HLF trial for transfering money to Hamas. I am not going to debate I/P here, but there is no denying the reality that CAIR was set up at the directive of the MB and that it has been involved with funneling money to a designated terrorist organization.


I doubt she was talking about herself in the present tense.
Well she did say "WE are tired of being treated like second class citizens". So if she is using WE I would think she is including herself in the WE. Still she is a women who was saved by the US from a refugee camp, is in congress, and part of the 1% with her 6 figure salary. Maybe she could of made a point that we all face troubles but if you are like me you can rise above. But easier to play the victim card.

Oh how noble of them to finally allow something thats a basic part of the ideal of religious freedom the founding fathers have put into the constitution centuries ago.
Jews have been in congress for decades and yet the rules were never changed so they could wear their kippah's. But the point is to show that instead of her being a second class citizen losing her rights, congress bent over for her and gave her more rights than anyone else enjoyed in congress. Oh the horrible America. Would be nice of her to recognize the gesture congress did so she doesn't have to chose between her relegion and her job.

That doesn't make any sense.
She is criticizing Israels attitude towards Palestine(which btw. is also in clear violation of international law) and she is criticizing Israels far right positions. In no way does that mean that she supports or incites antisemitic hate crimes.
And in no way does it mean that she isn't in a position to complain about Islamophobia and discrimination and stigmatization against Muslims in the US.
My point was that she is talking about how Muslims are second class citizens, need to confront people who look at them strange, how they are perpetual victims, but she has no awarness about how hurtful and offensive her words are to Jews, or how they might incite violence. If Muslims are second class citizens then what are Jews who suffer 3 times as many hate crimes than Muslims? 6th class citizens?


You can know where the money is coming from without knowing the exact date this group was founded.
True, but saying CAIR was formed as a reaction to 9/11 when it was fromed in 94 at the behest of the Muslim Brotherhood tells me maybe she doesn't know where the money is coming from.

Quite remarkable to say this about a Congresswomen who ran on a platform that prominently included campaign finance reform and who's second largest contributor is literally called "End Citizens United"(which is the SCOTUS decision that allowed corporations to bribe politicians and the very reason for the mess the US is in).
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/summary?cid=N00043581
.
Yet she takes money from CAIR, a lobby group. She has a problem with certain lobby groups only. If she was not a hypocrite she wouldn't speak at CAIR events nor take any money from them.

I will follow Ilhans logic, Benjamins makes support for a cause, and say since she took money from CAIR, that she only supports CAIR's message because she was bought off by them. And I have to question if she has foreign allegiance to Palestine???

That wasn't her argument, though.
The argument was that due to stigmatization and wrongful connection to terrorist attacks Muslims are facing discriminations and an erosion of their civil liberties in the US.
She said CAIR was founded to fight this development after 9/11 and this is wrong.
CAIR was founded to fight this development, but even though they increased their work after 9/11 because the problem Muslims faced grew rapidly, they were actually founded years before 9/11.
So yeah, she made a mistake, but that mistake wasn't related to her argument about Muslims facing these problems in the US and CAIR fighting it.

It's a petty attempt at discrediting her argument without having to actually engage in it.
Well I have shown that CAIR wasn't founded to fight for anything outside of Palestinian Propaganda. But I think thats beside the point.

She disrepsected 9/11 and tried to make it seem like some minor event. Yet she has no problem calling the NZ massacre a tragic nightmare. Its not a good look and the lame excuses are well just lame. She downplayed 9/11 and lots of people are going to be offended by that.

Some might give her the benefit of the doubt and say it was a minor slip up, which fine then she should of apologized instead of doubling down. Me personally this was not a snafu, she knew her audience and she knew that saying 9/11 was done by Muslim terrorist doesn't play well to an audience that supports Hamas and Hezbollah. She would get bigger cheers for saying the Mossad did 9/11 than Islamic extremist did it and she knows it.

I bet if I tweeted Omar that the NZ massacre was something done by someone she would get pretty pissed and offended, probably even say I am inciting violence. I don't think any white person would go to the NAACP and say 200 years ago some people did something to blacks and expect to get away with it.
 

desertdroog

Member
Aug 12, 2008
2,012
395
785
I want to thank Rep Omar for doing her part, as clumsily as she can be with handwaving away the greatest terrorist attack the U.S. has ever faced, in helping everyone to remember 9-11.

We are truly blessed to live in a country where free speech allows us to see a person for whom they really are, by their own words. We also prove equality exists where a person can be criticised in kind, despite the idpol stack said individual may attempt to use as a buttress against the deserved criticism.

Bravo Democrats! I had lost hope that you couldn't remain relevant, yet here we are. A Muslim woman refugee experiencing all the bounty of the United States of America with all the privilege a citizen is afforded, and getting to interact as an equal.

May Rep Omar continue to expose her constituents and her own heart on these important matters. She does a great service to her fellow reps in the House and allows the citizenry transparency into her beliefs.
😎
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
I've already addressed everything you said. There is a difference between criticism and propaganda. This is propaganda. Dangerous propaganda at that. If you still disagree after everything I have already said and still don't see where I am coming from and don't see why putting a Muslim woman alongside footage of 9/11 is offensive then I don't think there is much point in discussing it further.


This is a black and white issue to me. There is a right and there is a wrong. This is wrong. What she said was obviously worth criticizing, but to take it this far is unnecessary and it is dangerous.
...a Muslim woman who just downplayed 9/11

This is dumb, even for you 😂
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
9,251
11,583
830
Australia
You are so full of straight up shit right now and I am not going to let you get away with it. When have I EVER excused or defended terrorism. Show me. Quote me. I want examples. Right now. Otherwise you withdraw your baseless claim and admit you are just making up shit YET AGAIN in order to go after me. Because I know you can't. Because I know I never have. But I know you are gonna come back with some bullshit halfass excuse as to why you won;t show examples. Or better yet you are gonna come up with some bullshit "I know what you really mean" garbage in order to get away with such a bullshit claim while knowing you have absolutely no proof to back it up.


You consistently put on a show and pretend to be "above" me or others, but when you make boldfaced lies like this it shows that its all an act. You are just as biased and full of shit as the very worst this section has to offer. You just do a better job of hiding it than most.


Now show me where I am a "terrorism apologist" or admit you are full of shit.