Now that the allegations of immigration fraud against Rep. Ilhan Omar have entered the mainstream, although she steadfastly refuses to address them, it is important to remember that these charges are not the only reason why she causes concern. Last March, Omar was the main speaker at a private fundraiser in Los Angeles for CAIR. Her remarks were notable for several reasons, as an article in Breitbart made clear:
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) referred to September 11, 2001, as a day in which “some people did something” during her keynote address at a private fundraiser for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) of Greater Los Angeles last March.
“Some people did something.”
Was Omar hoping by this bizarrely vague formulation to make it appear that the 19 Arab Muslims who carried out the 9/11 attacks should not be identified as such because, clearly, they were “extremists” who had nothing to do with the real Islam, and should not be identified with the faith? She could have said “some people claiming to be Muslims carried out the horrific attacks of 9/11.” That would have been both true (they did “claim to be Muslims”), and also would thereby suggest that they were “bad’’ Muslims, or perhaps not Muslims at all.
There is another possibility, that Ilhan Omar is one more Muslim conspiracy-theorist, and does not believe that Muslims (or those “calling themselves Muslims”) were responsible for the attacks, that Israel could have been behind it, so as to make Muslims look bad — we are expected to believe that “3000 Jews working at the Twin Towers did not go to work that day” — possibly in cahoots with Islamophobic elements in the American government. But instead of saying that openly — “on 9/11,when many of us believe that Israel staged a terrorist attack for which Muslims would get the blame” — mindful of how bizarre such a view seems to non-Muslims, she decided to be deliberately vague in describing 9/11 as a day when “some people did something.” That’s a signal to her audience that much remains to be known about the attacks that day: we can’t be sure who took part in them, or who orchestrated them, we don’t know if Muslims were used by the Mossad, or if indeed the people with Muslim names, who were identified as taking part in the attacks, actually did so.
Now that we know what Ilhan Omar said in that address, she needs to answer some questions. Ideally, an editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune should take the lead and ask: “Ilhan Omar, What Do You Mean By “Some People Did Something” On 9/11”? But it has been three months now, and the Star Tribune has not published anything like this, so don’t hold your breath.
In her remarks, Omar urged attendees to “raise hell” and “make people uncomfortable” in an effort to reverse the fortunes of Muslim Americans, who the freshman Congresswoman suggested were demoted to second-class citizens following 9/11.
What “reversal of fortunes” have Muslim Americans suffered? How have they been “demoted to second-class citizens following 9/11”? Would Ilhan Omar care to tell us what laws, federal, state, or local, have been passed that treat Muslims differently? Could she give us examples of how, even in the absence of such laws, she believes Muslims have been treated worse than others by Islamophobic bigots? Isn’t it quite the reverse, with Muslims being privileged, with workplace accommodations for daily prayers, school curricula supplying students with a sanitized version of Islam, where pupils get to recite the Shehada, memorize the Five Pillars, learn Qur’an 2:256 (“There is no compulsion in religion”) and a deliberately-misleading abridged 5:32 (“Whoever kills a person [innocent person]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind”), police departments go out of their way to hire Muslims, and the media celebrate our two new Muslim congresswomen? Isn’t Ilhan Omar, despite her antisemitic remarks about AIPAC buying support for Israel (“it’s all about the benjamins, baby”) herself being treated with kid gloves by fellow Democrats, and given star treatment by the media, even landing on the cover of Newsweek?
“CAIR was founded after 9/11, because they recognize that some people did something, and then all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,” said Omar, without offering any evidence to back up her claim. “You can’t just say that today someone is looking at me strange, that I am going to try to make myself look pleasant. You have to say that person is looking at me strange, I am not comfortable with it. I am going to talk to them and ask them why.”
Apparently Ilhan Omar does not know that CAIR was founded in 1994. She insists it “was founded after 9/11” in response to a supposed — in fact, non-existent — campaign against Muslims who “were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.” There are a few things wrong with this. First, CAIR was founded in 1994; its founding had nothing to do with any supposed backlash against Muslims after 9/11. Second, there never was, in any case, such an anti-Muslim backlash after 9/11. In fact, there have been endless reassurances made to Muslims who keep claiming to be victims (some even staging “hate crimes” against themselves); a sanitized version of Islam is promoted in the schools (and woe betide the teacher who dares to present home truths about the contents of the Qur’an).
Third, CAIR is not mainly a civil rights organization, though it calls itself such and Ilhan Omar describes it thus. Robert Spencer has summed up CAIR’s history: “CAIR is an un-indicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.) CAIR chapters frequently distribute pamphlets telling Muslims not to cooperate with law enforcement. CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented and has been declared a terror organization by the United Arab Emirates. CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government. CAIR’s national outreach manager is an open supporter of Hamas.”
Later in her remarks, the Minnesota Democrat implied President Donald Trump was to blame for the deadly mosque shooting in Christchurch, New Zealand. The March 15th attack, which consisted of two consecutive shootings during Friday prayers, killed 50 people and wounded 50 others. “The reason I think that many of us knew that this was going to get worse is that we finally have a leader, a world leader in the White House, who publicly says Islam hates us; who fuels hate against Muslims; who thinks it is okay, that it’s okay to speak about a faith and a whole community in a way that is dehumanizing, vilifying, and doesn’t understand, or at least makes us want to think that he doesn’t understand, the consequences that his words might have,” she said.
If the attack on the mosque in New Zealand is to be blamed on President Trump, as Ilhan Omar shamelessly contends, we are expected to believe that the lone lunatic in Christchurch would not have carried out his killings without the handful of less than flattering remarks made by Trump about Islam (similarly, some people want to blame the killings by Anders Breivik on Robert Spencer’s Islamocriticism), then the more than 35,000 attacks by Muslim terrorists since 9/11 should with considerably more justice be blamed on the verses in the Qur’an that command Believers to “fight” and to “kill” the Unbelievers, to “smite” at their necks, and to “strike terror in their hearts.” Let’s ask Ilhan Omar whether she believes such Qur’anic verses as 2:191-193, 3:151, 4:89, 8:12, 8:60, 9:5, 9:29, 47:4, 98:6 have an effect on Muslims, and does she not agree that these, along with another 100 verses commanding violent Jihad, explain Muslim attitudes and behavior toward Unbelievers. Indeed, let’s ask her if she takes those verses to heart herself, or whether she just ignores them, something no one claiming to be a Muslim should do. Does she think, for example, that Muslims should follow 8:12, which says “Your Lord inspired the angels: I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes”? Does she agree with 98:6, which describes non-Muslims as “the most vile of created beings”? And what does she think about Muhammad’s own claim, in a famous hadith, that “I have been made victorious through terror”? And could she tell us who, in her view, was responsible for the 9/11 attacks when “some people did something”? She has so far managed not to have been asked such questions by an adoring media; it’s time now, when the media is finally beginning to report on her possible immigration fraud, that she were put to the test about these other statements.
Martin says
video – the rebel : Ilhan Omar REFUSES to answer questions about her brother-husband | Keean Bexte
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3NK56zw8QU
christianblood says
Why focus on a single islamist when the US is openly protecting the biggest concentration of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the world today which is the Idlib province of Syria where over 50.000 Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters are concentrated.
(…US is against Idlib operation because it will give Assad another victory…)
James Jeffrey, the U.S. envoy to Syria. More of this below:
https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-envoy-is-against-idlib-operation-because-it-will-give-assad-another-victory/
gravenimage says
christianblood is just spamming again–he has demanded that we ignore Jihad enablers on at least two threads now.
Then, he claims again that our having defeated the Islamic State is–somehow–protecting ISIS. Moreover, this page he linked to does not exist.
Al-Masdar News’ deputy editor Paul Antonopoulos was shown to be active on the neo-Nazi site Stormfront.
The site has insane stories like those claiming that Israel created Hamas and is lobbing rockets at herself and murdering her own citizens.
Christianblood says
gravenimage
How is reporting the US protecting 50.000 Al-Qaeda and ISIS jihadists in Idlib an spamming?
Wellington says
He’s loonier than even a lot of Muzzies, gravenimage. Well, it’s gotten to the point that he’s good for laughs and nothing more.
If he is a paid troll, his payer should stop paying him because he long ago became a parody of himself and thus totally ineffective. Trolls optimally should be at least somewhat effective. He ain’t at all.
gravenimage says
christianblood wrote:
gravenimage
How is reporting the US protecting 50.000 Al-Qaeda and ISIS jihadists in Idlib an spamming?
…………………………
This story at the Al-Masdar News seems to be back up now, so I have had a chance to read it.
The U.S. envoy to Syria James Jeffrey says *nothing* about protecting Al-Qaeda and ISIS in this story. What a surprise…
Christianblood says
gravenimage
US is against the removal of its 50.000 jihadist proxies in Idlib because these jihadist proxies in Idlib give US another opportunity to topple president Assad of Syria and its like a plan B for their regime-change agenda! US allies like the UK, Saudi Arabia and France also warned the removal of these jihadists from Idlib! The reality is, it is only a matter of time before these jihadists in Idlib are annihilated and the sooner they are destroyed the better! Do you agree?
Angemon says
“US is against the removal of its 50.000 jihadist proxies in Idlib because these jihadist proxies in Idlib give US another opportunity to topple president Assad of Syria”
Citation needed.
gravenimage says
I’m always for taking out Jihadists. christianblood has nothing to back up his claim that the US has 50,000 Jihadists in Idlib, though–even the story at the pro-Muslim site he links to makes no such claim.
Angemon says
gravenimage posted:
“even the story at the pro-Muslim site he links to makes no such claim.”
What it does claim is that one of the reasons to make a military offensive the last resort option is the number of refugees it would create – millions. Millions who, possibly, would go the way of the other before them – marching straight to European shores. Just yesterday we had a report of a mass gang rape by Syrian men, possibly “refugees”. No wonder CB is upset – every day the military option is not acted upon is one more day before the exodus begins and therefore one more day until Europeans, and I’m going to paraphrase CB now, “get what they deserve”…
Christianblood says
Graven
US don’t want the elimination of the 50.000 jihadists concentrated in Idlib
and warned numerous times against it! (…Trump Calls on Syria, Russia to Halt “Butchery”’ of Idlib Airstrikes…)
Read one of these warnings below:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-scolds-syria-russia-over-intensifying-idlib-airstrikes-11559574923
Angemon says
“US don’t want the elimination of the 50.000 jihadists concentrated in Idlib”
Citation needed.
gravenimage says
I can’t read that entire Wall Street Journal story–but nowhere in the part I can read is the US saying that it has Jihadists in the region, let alone 50,000 of them.
I can’t find any stories online–even from disreputable sources–that make such a claim.
christianblood says
Graven
The US did not put the 50.000 Jihadists in Idlib, they fled there after they were defeated other parts of Syria but now the US wants to protect them from annihilation to use them as regime-change tools later on and to deny the Syrian government a final victory against jihadists.
Angemon says
“the US wants to protect them from annihilation to use them as regime-change tools later”
Citation needed. The truth is, the mess in Syria is of Assad’s own making – he claimed anyone opposing him was an terrorist but there was just one small thing: there were no actual terrorist attacks to speak of. So what did the little Israeli-hater do? Why, he emptied the Sednaya prison of its most hardened jihadis (Assad’s history shows he’s OK with jihad terrorism just as long as he is not the target) under the guise of a “gest of good faith” (“see, I’m so open to dialogue with the protestors asking for my resignation that I even freed political prisoners”).
Why you want to reward someone who released jihadis on his own people by giving him exactly what he wants is beyond me. Of course, I expected nothing of an immoral beast such as yourself. Were you really concerned with the fate of Christians in Syria, you’d join me saying that they need to be given a nation of their own so they’re not dependent on the good will of a muslim overlord that, at the drop of a hat, can toss them to the wolves only to pretend he’s protecting them from said wolves…
gravenimage says
It looks as though christianblood is pretending that concerns about genocide are actually support for Jihad. Try again…
gravenimage says
So true, Wellington.
Angemon says
christianblood posted:
“Why focus on a single islamist ”
What, exactly, is an “islamist”?
“when the US is openly protecting the biggest concentration of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the world today”
Citation needed.
Oh, and from the article you brought up – which, BTW, has demonstrable ties to far-right sites (as in, Stormfront, not as in “someone Democrats don’t like”) and it’s been described as being “pro-Assad”:
I’m sure you would just love to see all those “refugees” march on to Europe, wouldn’t you?… You’ve shown to love this kind of news:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/06/germany-muslim-migrant-who-raped-teen-girl-with-10-friends-claims-she-demanded-sex
J D S says
I can’t add much to what Graven , Angemon and others have stated in response to christianblood’s many post wristband in the past except ….words spoken are just words until hands and feet are attached…Christian blood can not put hands and feet to his words because …………well fill in the blanks.
dominique says
amazing, let’s all tippee toe so we don’t get our little feelings hurt! never mind the tragedies ‘they’ commit daily around the world while they work on their agenda of domination. does this not seem like pure bs to you?
better speak up folks; make YOUR feelings known also!! cair/soros paid her way to Congress; that should give one cause for pause also.
janice g. says
who is raising (!?) her children? certainly not her
Terry Gain says
“Some people did something.”
………….
I think it was a taunt to test the limits of what she could say. She now knows that there are no limits.
Wellington says
Pure fifth columnist.
lebel says
Can we also ask her why she participated in and danced at a gay pride parade ?
https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1143168166190866433
Can we also ask her why she listens to Prince and celebrates his music when Islam forbids it?
https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/1143694316059189248
I know, I know Taqqiya allows and encourages it but you know it’s really going above and beyond the call of duty. And if she was a taqqiya master she could say I love Israel and Jews and I hate terrorists and Muslim terrorists hit us on 911.
Strange….
Wellington says
Could be deception, lebel, but I rather think it is evidence that Islam makes for a terribly confused mind in sundry ways, what I call Muslimthink.
Also, a large number of people of religious belief, adherents of whatever religion, tend to engage in a “pick and choose” approach to their religion, i,e., they follow some dictates but not others. Take for instance those who say they are Christian but think that acting upon homosexual inclinations is still OK or that having heterosexual sex outside of marriage is all right as well when clearly the Christian theological blueprint prohibits this.
What really natters is what the ideology in question puts forth and Islam puts forth putrid crap that no other major faith does, like death for apostasy and punishment for any criticism of Mohammed or the Koran. In short, Islam stands in its theory as an inveterate opponent of freedom of religion and freedom of speech. What other major faith in its theological blueprint is inimical to liberty as Islam surely is? Again I aver, it’s the ideology, stupid.
James Lincoln says
+1
Christianblood says
lebel
In opposition to the “right wing” conservatives, Homosexuals and Muslims are allies and treat each other as allies in the West and openly support each other politically in many different ways. Watch the video below as the Canadian police, local muslims and “LGBTQ” activists harass a local street pastor in Toronto.
Watch especially mark 27: 35 and mark 33:12 of the video and hear the screams of “allah is great” and “allahu akbar” directed at the pastor by local muslims who came out in support of their “LGBTQ” allies! The pastor eventually gets arrested by the police!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sS6AlYBnnlM&feature=youtu.be
gravenimage says
christianblood regularly lauds Muslims in Iran and Chechnya for slaughtering gays–he has refused on scores of instances now to say anything critical of Muslims murdering gay people.
Muslims are not actually in support of gay people–they are just using this to target a Christian. Of course, christianblood knows this.
CRUSADER says
Pick and Choose ritualism is just religion by convenience,
not true Faith….
lebel says
“Also, a large number of people of religious belief, adherents of whatever religion, tend to engage in a “pick and choose” approach to their religion, i,e., they follow some dictates but not others. ”
This is the simplest answer and of course the likeliest one. Muslims like everyone else have their contradictions. They do not behave in behaviour one can predict by reading Hadith and Sira etc it just does not work that way. This is why most Muslims do not even want Shariah as we saw in Egypt, Tunisia and other places.
It can however work that way with Jihadis which is why, and here’s where you and I will part ways, the two have to be separated.
Angemon says
“They do not behave in behaviour one can predict by reading Hadith and Sira etc it just does not work that way. … It can however work that way with Jihadis”
Aren’t jihadis muslims?
Wellington says
lebel: But with all major religions except Islam there is nothing to choose in the theological blueprint which condones using violence in this world in the name of the religion of choice.
Here Islam is unique and many Muslims ‘avail” themselves of this “option.” It’s the “third threat” i have mentioned to you before which is peculiar only to Islam and this is why Islam is such a menace as no other major faith is. It matters not that many Muslims will not use force to insure Islam’s existence and success. What matters is that many Muslims will. And such Muslims are guided to do this by Islamic dictates, such as death for apostasy, and which no other major faith mandates. Herein lies the main reason for my overwhelming objection to Islam, such as I have for no other major religion even though I am a completely non-religious person.
gravenimage says
The dishonest lebel wrote:
This is why most Muslims do not even want Shariah as we saw in Egypt, Tunisia and other places.
……………………..
What claptrap. Here are the results of Pew Polls on the subject:
72% of Muslims in Tunisia want Shari’ah law, as do 82% of Muslims in Egypt–this last includes the stoning of women.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx#sharia
lebel has to keep lying about Islam, because he knows how horrific the truth is.
Angemon says
lebel posted:
“Can we also ask her why she participated in and danced at a gay pride parade ?”
We can go further than that – we can ask her to wholeheartedly and unequivocally shariah law based on its prescribed treatment of gays.
lebel says
She does not give one hoot about Shariah, if you guys spent a couple of minutes on Muslim forums you would see what many Muslims think about her:
https://muslimskeptic.com/2019/06/25/are-we-ready-to-hold-accountable-those-who-promoted-ilhan-rashida-et-al/
Angemon says
lebel posted:
“She does not give one hoot about Shariah”
Citation needed.
“if you guys spent a couple of minutes on Muslim forums you would see what many Muslims think about her”
Weasel words.
gravenimage says
This is just a difference between what Hugh Fitzgerald calls the “Fast Jihadists” and the “Slow Jihadists”. There ultimate goals are just the same.
gravenimage says
Muslims regularly engage in superficial un-Islamic behavior while in the free West, either out of expediency or preference–but they rarely reject Jihad and Shari’ah outright.
This is, in fact, enormously common, and does not present a contradiction as lebel implies.
lebel says
I would say things are more complex than that but if Ilhan supports Shariah, why not support Brunei?
https://muslimskeptic.com/2019/05/17/ilhan-omar-bravely-introduces-anti-sharia-legislation-to-congress/
Other Muslims, those who truly support Shariah, are asking such questions. They don’t seem to be aware that she’s practicing the fine art of Taqqiya.
Angemon says
lebel posted:
“if Ilhan supports Shariah, why not support Brunei?”
https://www.dailywire.com/news/45277/omar-refuses-condemn-gays-being-stoned-death-under-ryan-saavedra
gravenimage says
This is just Muslims enraged that Ilhan Omar is not doing even more to impose brutal Shari’ah law.
And Omar herself, while sneering at the idea that Muslims are imposing Shari’ah law, will not actually say anything critical of it:
https://twitter.com/IlhanMN/status/873648463896031235
Angemon says
“And if she was a taqqiya master she could say I love Israel and Jews and I hate terrorists and Muslim terrorists hit us on 911.
Strange….”
And risk being murdered by a more devout coreligionist?
lebel says
Logically, you would also risk being murdered for participating IN A GAY PRIDE PARADE!
Angemon says
“Logically, you would also risk being murdered for participating IN A GAY PRIDE PARADE!”
“LOGICALLY” my ass, you ignoramus. Is she a lesbian? If not, why would she receive any punishment?
Jayell says
Message for Congresswoman Omar.
What’s that you say?….”You have to say that person is looking at me strange, I am not comfortable with it. I am going to talk to them and ask them why.”
Oh dear, oh dear, Ms. Omar, it doesn’t seem to have struck you that a person ‘ looking at you strange’ doesn’t want you to be comfortable with it, probably because that person is not comfortable with YOU. Now, why should that be, I wonder? Some of the dubious things you’ve been saying, perhaps? Or don’t you know when you’re saying ‘dubious things’? If your social awareness is that bad, what exactly do you think you’re doing in Congress, where you’re supposed to be representing other people? Could that explain the ‘strange looks’? And aren’t these looks going to get even stranger if it turns out that you’ve actually been bending immigration rules in a way most people would consider disgusting in order to get citizenship of a civilised country to which you obviously knew you weren’t entitled? Or do you think that you’re entitled to whatever you want and other people and their rules don’t matter? That’s really a good qualification for a member of Congress, isn’t it, assuming Congress exists for your personal benefit and no-one else’s. Is the USA the right place for you?
jarmanray says
As evil as she is the main culprits are the anti-Semitics that voted for a person who seems to hate the nation that accepted her and offered her the opportunity to receive an education and raise her children in a very comfortable life style. The nation even brought her husband/brother here also. These are the same voters that elected Keith Ellison, whose voting record while in Congress was beyond the pale, liberal. I had read many of her statements before the election and I am positive that those who voted for her knew exactly how evil she is.
gravenimage says
A lot of liberals foolishly believe that the antisemitic and anti-American Omar is a “progressive”.
CRUSADER says
How long will it be before we see a Muslima on debate stage
among those seeking presidential aspirations as a
Democrat candidate in the USA?
gravenimage says
Scary–but likely.
MarkMulakussh says
“…clearly, they were “extremists” who had nothing to do with the real Islam…”
They were ordinary muslims, with ordinary islamic upbringing. They were not extremists.
Trouble is all of Islam is extremist, unwilling to let anyone else live.
Eric Jones says
In every society I have ever lived in its incest to marry ones sibling. How did immigration accept this as acceptable as pertaining to her immigration status? Since she is engaged in incest how is she acceptable to sit in congress? Is this not moral turpitude?
Eric
gravenimage says
This was probably immigration fraud rather than actual incest–still makes her unfit to serve in Congress. In means she should be prosecuted.
gravenimage says
It means
gravenimage says
A Few Questions for Ilhan Omar
………………..
All important questions.
mortimer says
Ilhan Omar implies that Al Qaeda members are not Islamic, when in fact, she knows they are VERY ISLAMIC.
Journalist Abdel Bari Atwan wrote that Al Qaeda’s members represent most schools in Islam … they are broadly Islamic:
“While the leadership’s own theological platform is essentially Salafi, the organization’s umbrella is sufficiently wide to encompass various schools of thought and political leanings. Al-Qaeda counts among its members and supporters people associated with Wahhabism, Shafi’ism, Malikism, and Hanafism. There are even some Al-Qaeda members whose beliefs and practices are directly at odds with Salafism, such as Yunis Khalis, one of the leaders of the Afghan mujahedin. He was a mystic who visited the tombs of saints and sought their blessings – practices inimical to bin Laden’s Wahhabi-Salafi school of thought. The only exception to this pan-Islamic policy is Shi’ism. Al-Qaeda seems implacably opposed to it, as it holds Shi’ism to be heresy. In Iraq it has openly declared war on the Badr Brigades, who have fully cooperated with the US, and now considers even Shi’i civilians to be legitimate targets for acts of violence”.
Prasad E D says
First throw her out of the country. She who entered USA promised to abide by rules governed by the country not introduce her rules. She has to develop USA not other country. Lastly be a faithful and honest citizen of USA not putting one leg in USA and other country.
mortimer says
Ilhan Omar is filled with hot, steaming farm-fresh taqiyya. The sooner voters see that, the better.
somehistory says
She puts her ugly…and yes, to me, double-ugly, inside and out…face out there for every opportunity to be seen and heard, sneering and using her snake eyes and her forked tongue.
But, just let someone step up to ask the hard questions about the lying and deceptive things she has said….and done, in illegal use of campaign funds, marrying her brother…and who knows what else…and she puts up her hand to signal that she is not going to answer and doesn’t want her face on camera.
She is like many other liars…tell the big ones and then cowardly hide when someone wants sources to back up what was said or an explanation of why it was said.
She will never tell the truth. She lies and then hides from those who demand she be held responsible for her devious actions and words.
Her connection to cair has probably afforded her the opportunity to hear she should not speak to the FBI or others who might demand the truth about what she knows regarding terrorism.
Ton Cek says
The west lost its fight against Islam when the founding fathers in all western democracies granted freedom of religion under each constitution without defining what a religion is. This has allowed cults like Islam, Mormonism, Scientology etc to claim the right to be referred to as religions. Ilhan Omar is like most Muslims in that she pretends to believe in the democratic process so long as it affords Muslims freedoms to practice their cult but she probably in private despises living in a system thar grants freedom to other religions and minorities like transgender individuals and homosexuals. The non Muslim people who voted her into Congress are probably regreting wasting their vote on a person that belongs to a totalitarian ideology that has no place in western societies.
gravenimage says
You know who else hates the freedoms in the Bill of Rights? Yes, that would be pious Muslims.
CRUSADER says
“We Have Overcome”
Jason Hill, author on positive experiences of immigrating to America:
A black immigrant’s eloquent appreciation of the American Dream, and why his adopted nation remains the most noble experiment in enabling the pursuit of happiness.
It has been more than fifty years since the Civil Rights Act enshrined equality under the law for all Americans. Since that time, America has enjoyed an era of unprecedented prosperity, domestic and international peace, and technological advancement. It’s almost as if removing the shackles of enforced racial discrimination has liberated Americans of all races and ethnicities to become their better selves, and to work toward common goals in ways that our ancestors would have envied.
But the dominant narrative, repeated in the media and from the angry mouths of politicians and activists, is the exact opposite of the reality. They paint a portrait of an America rife with racial and ethnic division, where minorities are mired in a poverty worse than slavery, and white people stand at the top of an unfairly stacked pyramid of privilege.
Jason D. Hill corrects the narrative in this powerfully eloquent book. Dr. Hill came to this country at the age of twenty from Jamaica and, rather than being faced with intractable racial bigotry, Hill found a land of bountiful opportunity—a place where he could get a college education, earn a doctorate in philosophy, and eventually become a tenured professor at a top university, an internationally recognized scholar, and the author of several respected books in his field.
Throughout his experiences, it wasn’t a racist establishment that sought to keep him down. Instead, Hill recounts, he faced constant naysaying from so-called liberals of all races. His academic colleagues did not celebrate the success of a black immigrant but chose to denigrate them because this particular black immigrant did not embrace their ideology of victimization.
Part memoir, part exhortation to his fellow Americans, and, above all, a paean to the American Dream and the magnificent country that makes it possible, “We Have Overcome” is the most important and provocative book about race relations to be published in this century.
Amnon says
I am that surprised at fok’s disigenuousness on this topic?
gravenimage says
What does “fok” mean? Is the pro-Jihadist Amnon trying to say “folk’s” (which is still a misspelling, but is at least intelligible).
What is disingenuous about the posts here? Citations, please.
NotALib_NoMo says
CAIR is a terrorist organization. It’s officers and members are terrorists. They should be treated as such.
Rotten Eye says
Another question to ask: Did Ilhan have sex with her brother, did she consummate the marriage? It is common in Islam that brothers and sisters marry and propagate inbreed misfits, such as the crooked eye common in the Middle East and low intelligence.
Felix Quigley says
I want the question raised by Christian Blood (By the way I do not support his minimisation of the role of Omar) that the Trump Government is supporting “Rebels” against Assad in Idlib.
That has been raised and brushed under the carpet by many people on this site and that is intolerable.
Felix Quigley says
This is a Reuters report on June 3 past.
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Sunday urged Russia and Syrian government forces to stop bombing Syria’s Idlib province, following a Friday Kremlin statement that signaled Moscow would continue to back a month-long Syrian government offensive there.
“Hearing word that Russia, Syria and, to a lesser extent, Iran, are bombing the hell out of Idlib Province in Syria, and indiscriminately killing many innocent civilians. The World is watching this butchery. What is the purpose, what will it get you? STOP!” Trump wrote in a Twitter post.
On Friday, the Kremlin said it was Turkey’s responsibility to stop rebels in Syria’s Idlib province from firing on civilian and Russian targets. Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has long complained to Moscow about the Russian-backed Syrian government strikes against rebels who control the country’s northwest.
The offensive in Idlib is the biggest escalation of the war between Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and rebel opponents of his government since last summer, and has raised fears of a humanitarian crisis as Syrians displaced by the fighting seek shelter at the Turkish border.
More than 200,000 people have fled the violence in Idlib since the strikes began at the end of April, according to the United Nations.
When asked on Sunday night before departing on a state visit to Britain what he intended to do about the massacre of civilians in Idlib, Trump told reporters he did not like the situation. “Bad things are happening,” Trump said.
Reporting by Julia Harte and Katanga Johnson; Editing by Will Dunham”.
This report from Reuters raises certain points in my mind. But remember I never trust any statement from the UN.
1. What is America doing supporting a Rebel group against Assad?
2. Assad is leader of the government No?
3. Assad has the right to invite whoever to help his Govt.
4. America was NOT invited by the Government.
This kind of imprecision is mystifying to me and is very dangerous in our world.
The same method was used in Yugoslavia by Bill Clinton and Madeleine Albright to overthrow the Government and to tear Kosovo away from Serbia
There are quite a number of regular commenters that I cannot understand and I think they are not expressing in truth the editorial people on the site. I may be wrong but that is the feeling I get.
Felix Quigley says
Following my train of thought is it true that the division int he world that was created when Bush, Blair and Aznar went to war to overthrow Saddam, later against Gaghbo. later similar in Egypt against Mubarak by Obama, and then in Libya against Gadhafi, that that division has been carried forward into this site at this time by a certain number of commenters. Who may not actually be in agreement with the editors of Jihadwatch. Smuggling political lines in through the back door as it were. Hardly upright and honest.
I think that the 2003 war has left a deep scar on our world and not resolved. It must be confronted.
What is really up with Trump! In the election campaign he often admitted or charged that Bush got it totally wrong. He was most emphatic about that.
Is he not now doing the same thing?
gravenimage says
How *dare* any of the filthy Infidels be against indiscriminate slaughter? Good Communists would never care about anything like this!
Felix Quigley is mostly just enraged that his Trotskyite revolution is not proceeding fast enough.
somehistory says
In the video, she seems to be speaking to the guy in her native language and he appears to be moslim. The woman also appears to be non native American in appearance. She must be a bigot as she doesn’t seem to have any Whites or non moslims on her staff. Unless she just can’t get anyone else to work in her office.
And the entire time she is walking, she has a sneaky smile…as though she believes she will never have to answer any questions regarding her illegal misconduct regarding her “marriage” to her brother, filing a joint return with a male not her husband or any other laws she broke.
But, there will come the day when she has to pay the piper. No one is exempt. Each one reaps what is sown by that one.
Maximus says
Married to her brother? But wait, wasn’t she also born in Hawaii? Hmmm…
Felix Quigley says
First of all the article by Hugh Fitzgerald. A very good article.
Fitzgerald writes here:
“Now that we know what Ilhan Omar said in that address, she needs to answer some questions. Ideally, an editorial in the Minneapolis Star Tribune should take the lead and ask: “Ilhan Omar, What Do You Mean By “Some People Did Something” On 9/11”? But it has been three months now, and the Star Tribune has not published anything like this, so don’t hold your breath.”
Yes this is a really central question and issue. Until we can get an exploration of this issue then not much advance can be made in the struggle to expose and defeat Islam.
In fact nobody on the comments has fastened onto this point by Fitzgerald.
It raises the question as to why is the Media of the Ruling Elites, I think that term is accurate, are providing a definite cover over what Islam is all about in America.
At least Fitzgerald asks the question. He does not provide an answer but it is the main question, in all truth, to answer.
Then I come to the contradiction that is in Jihadwatch, and here I am talking about the main commenters, such as Jihadwatch, Wellington, and many others.
They are not consistent int heir fight against Islam as is seen in their refusal to defend Assad, and what he represents, against Islam. Here the subterfuge in these commenters on Jihadwatch kicks in.
When challenged they pretend to be mute!
gravenimage says
The idea that Assad, who is not just Muslim but a Jihadist himself, is “against Islam” is absurd.
Right now, he is the least appalling force in the region–but this is damning with faint praise, as it should be.
Who is “pretending to be mute” here? None of the Anti-Jihadists.
Felix Quigley says
To return to the questions unanswered christianblood has written in his first comment:
“Why focus on a single islamist when the US is openly protecting the biggest concentration of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the world today which is the Idlib province of Syria where over 50.000 Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters are concentrated.”
My answer here to christianblood is a resounding “it is necessary to do both”.
Omar along with Tlaib and AOC are in the centre of the Congress of the US. That itself makes Omar a major issue. Why minimise that?
Yet you christianblood highlight the contradiction. Assad must be defended against the Jihad in Syria and Trump is doing the very opposite.
This contradiction in the policy of the Trump Government, and the Democrats would have been as bad, was immediately covered up and confused by Wellington and the notorious string puller on Jihadwatch, Gravenimage.
As a Trotskyist I tend to not take sides, to seek only clarification on important issues. So how about a response, a proper response to this important question, from Gravenimage, Wellington and quite a few others?
Felix Quigley says
It is clear from what is written in these responses to Hugh Fitzgerald that the Jihad against Assad is being encouraged by many on this site, not necessarily I think by the editorial board writers.
It is the same issue as Saddam. Saddam was indeed an antisemite and a very cruel and dangerous individual.
The problem though is that he was not JUST that. He was also a leader that led an Iraq that tended in his time to be opposed to Jihad.
He was the most bitter enemy of Khomeini and the 1979 Iranian Fundamentalist Revolution.
By removing Saddam Bush Junior removed a great enemy of Iran and thus Bush helped Iran.
It is the same issues that are contained in this incessant refusal on the part of Gravenimage and Wellington to defend Assad.
Felix Quigley says
I hope somebody else can work out these things. There are people here like Gravenimage who have steadfastly refused to defend Assad, beofre that I presume Saddam, and so on, Gadhafi also, against the Jihad. Then there are those like this christian blood person who defends Assad from the Jihad but seems to not defend America from the likes of Omar, Tlaib, who are as bad Islamic Antisemites as you can find, and AOC also. This is a riddle.
gravenimage says
OK, let’s wade in here:
Felix Quigley wrote:
To return to the questions unanswered christianblood has written in his first comment:
“Why focus on a single islamist when the US is openly protecting the biggest concentration of Al-Qaeda and ISIS in the world today which is the Idlib province of Syria where over 50.000 Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters are concentrated.”
My answer here to christianblood is a resounding “it is necessary to do both”.
…………………………..
I can find no responsible source that confirms that there are 50,000 Al-Qaeda and ISIS fighters in Idlib, let alone his insane claim that they are all backed by the US.
Can Felix Quigley confirm this? I doubt it.
More:
Omar along with Tlaib and AOC are in the centre of the Congress of the US. That itself makes Omar a major issue. Why minimise that?
…………………………..
They are getting a lot of attention right now, because of their appalling behavior. But no–they are *not* the centre of Congress. They are, in fact, both junior Congresspeople. Junior Congresspeople usually keep a low profile because they are still learning–but not these Muslim thugs.
And the idea that Jihad Watch is minimizing the appalling Omar when it has has multiple articles on her–including this one by Hugh Fitzgerald–makes no sense at all.
More:
Yet you christianblood highlight the contradiction. Assad must be defended against the Jihad in Syria and Trump is doing the very opposite.
…………………………..
The United States defeated the Caliphate. The idea that this somehow supports the Jihad against Assad is bizarre. And the Jihad is being waged on multiple fronts in the region–Assad is *himself* a Jihadist, backing Jihad against Israel.
More:
This contradiction in the policy of the Trump Government, and the Democrats would have been as bad, was immediately covered up and confused by Wellington and the notorious string puller on Jihadwatch, Gravenimage.
…………………………..
How does stating my opinions make me a “string puller”–whatever that is? And I don’t think this is as contradiction–the US can defeat the Caliphate but still object to genocide–there is actually nothing contradictory about this.
I actually think the defeat of the Islamic State was a *good* thing.
More:
As a Trotskyist I tend to not take sides, to seek only clarification on important issues. So how about a response, a proper response to this important question, from Gravenimage, Wellington and quite a few others?
…………………………..
I have commented at length regarding this–a half dozen replies to christianblood alone. Why has Felix Quigley decided that this is not enough?
What, exactly, is he demanding I say?
And we know that as a Trotskyite that Felix Quigley supports the horrors of totarlitarianism. Not all of us consider that a good thing.
Yet more:
It is clear from what is written in these responses to Hugh Fitzgerald that the Jihad against Assad is being encouraged by many on this site, not necessarily I think by the editorial board writers.
…………………………..
Many of have said that Assad is the least horrific actor in the region–it really isn’t possible to say anything better about him.
More:
It is the same issue as Saddam. Saddam was indeed an antisemite and a very cruel and dangerous individual.
The problem though is that he was not JUST that. He was also a leader that led an Iraq that tended in his time to be opposed to Jihad.
…………………………..
Saddam Hussein was not anti-Jihad either–although what replaced him is arguably worse than he was.
He was not opposed to Jihad in attacking Iran–he saw his other-sect enemies the Shia in what he was was a weak position, and so he attacked. To take this as evidence of his being opposed to Jihad is absurd.
More:
He was the most bitter enemy of Khomeini and the 1979 Iranian Fundamentalist Revolution.
By removing Saddam Bush Junior removed a great enemy of Iran and thus Bush helped Iran.
It is the same issues that are contained in this incessant refusal on the part of Gravenimage and Wellington to defend Assad.
…………………………..
One of the bizarre things here is that Syria under Assad is a proxy state of Iran’s–implying that supporting Assad means opposing the Mullahs is either dishonest or terribly ignorant.
And still more:
I hope somebody else can work out these things. There are people here like Gravenimage who have steadfastly refused to defend Assad, beofre (sic) that I presume Saddam, and so on, Gadhafi also, against the Jihad.
…………………………..
What rot, I have said scores of times here that Assad is less bad than some of the factors in the region. I have noted that Gadhafi was himself a Jihadist–does Felix Quigley hope we have forgotten Lockerbie? But what has replaced him is even worse. Generally the same with Saddam Hussein. The idea that I have made a secret of my views here is terribly odd.
More:
Then there are those like this christian blood person who defends Assad from the Jihad but seems to not defend America from the likes of Omar, Tlaib, who are as bad Islamic Antisemites as you can find, and AOC also. This is a riddle.
…………………………..
This is no riddle. christianblood’s main purpose here is to attack the West.He regularly supports Iran, Hezb’allah, and Chechnya, as well as the Jihad against Israel. He has said that he wants Muslims to conquer and destroy the West.
As for Felix Quigley, his main opposition to Wellington and myself is that we regularly call him out on his desire to impose the horrors of Communism on us.
Angemon says
“The problem though is that he was not JUST that. He was also a leader that led an Iraq that tended in his time to be opposed to Jihad.
He was the most bitter enemy of Khomeini and the 1979 Iranian Fundamentalist Revolution.”
Saddam, like Assad or Gadaffi, had no problem supporting jihadi groups, just as long as they did their jihadi elsewhere. And by the end of his days as President of Iraq he was openly courting the hard-liners, despite the warning of his half brother in charge of Iraqi Intelligence.
gravenimage says
+1
Angemon says
“ Assad must be defended”
I have yet to see one good reason for this, especially considering that he propped up the groups he’s fighting against, going as far as to release battle-hardened jihadis as a “token of good faith”, perfectly aware they’d pick up arms against him. And don’t give me the “he’s protecting Christians” nonsense – persecution of Christians was rampant and escalating during his watch and before the war he started. If someone is actually interested in defending Christians in Syria, there’s only one way to do so: carve a nation of their own where they’re not at the whims of a muslim overlord.
Felix Quigley says
This is quite a bold claim that you put forward Angemon:
“I have yet to see one good reason for this, especially considering that he propped up the groups he’s fighting against, going as far as to release battle-hardened jihadis as a “token of good faith”, perfectly aware they’d pick up arms against him.”
So obviously you will have a reliable source to back up this startling course of action that you claim Assad did?
Mind sharing your source?
Felix Quigley says
Angemon while you provide your source the real evidence shows that it was America post Saddam which was creating Jihadis in their prison system…
quote…”FROM 2003 TO 2008 AMERICA AND ITS CIA EFFECTIVELY RAN A UNIVERSITY PROGRAMME WITH A FIVE YEAR DEGREE IN … JIHADISM
Nazim Al-Juburi, a prominent Al Qaeda defector, seemed to be of that opinion. In a May 2008 interview he said:
“We have spoken to the Americans more than once and told them that they make a big mistake by giving many of our detained people in Camp Bucca and other prisons a chance to be educated on this [jihadist] ideology.”[3]
A month later, Stone told the New York Times that he was now separating ‘extremist’ from ‘moderate’ inmates so as to impede this. But his prison system, he admitted, had been (his words) a “jihadi university.”[4]
That is exactly how another former detainee from Camp Bucca, Adel Jasim Mohammed, described it:
“ ‘Extremists had freedom to educate the young detainees. I saw them giving courses using classroom boards on how to use explosives, weapons and how to become suicide bombers,’ Mohammed said.
‘For the Americans we felt it was normal. They did not stop them [the radicals].’ ”[5]
This “jihadi university” was running from 2003 until the US military initiated the process to dismantle the prison system in late 2008. Five years—a bachelor’s degree. So even if we believe that Stone really did begin a half-hearted attempt to fix the problem in mid-2008, the damage was already—utterly—done.
https://adarapress.com/2015/11/30/now-you-see-it-just-where-did-isis-come-from-francisco-gil-white-hir/
Angemon says
“Angemon while you provide your source the real evidence shows that it was America post Saddam which was creating Jihadis in their prison system”
Even if your bold claim is true, it detracts nothing from what I said: Assad released dangerous jihadis from his prisons under the guise of “good faith”.
gravenimage says
This from Felix Quigley is absurd–all one need do is look through the Jihad Watch archives–Christians have been violently targeted for many years in Syria–this *much* predates the civil war there.
Then, it is a problem all over Dar-al-Harb that Jihadists teach other Muslims Jihad in prison–this is a serious issue, but to claim that this ergo means that the US was running a “jihad university ” is ludicrous calumny.
Felix Quigley says
Angemon…bit by bit I am patiently unpicking what you are claiming. Can you please put more flesh on this…
““ Assad must be defended” I said
You replied “I have yet to see one good reason for this, especially considering that he propped up the groups he’s fighting against, going as far as to release battle-hardened jihadis as a “token of good faith”, perfectly aware they’d pick up arms against him.”
You claim he propped up the groups hes fighting against. Is he irrational?
Is there a time reference here to your claim?
Was this connected in any way with the opposition of Assad and nearly all of the Arab world apart from Iran to the 2003 war on Saddam by Bush, Blair and Aznar? Assad was not fond of Saddam but I think he was strongly opposed to his overthrow because he foresaw serious consequences. Assad was opposed to the 2003 war. Could this be connected?
So I suppose there is a big question…when where and why?
Or approach this from another direction. Did Bush, Aznar and Blair invade Iraq to defeat Jihadism?
The answer to that last question is a definite NO! Bush, Blair and Aznar were full of illusions in Islam and this led them to remove Saddam the buffer against bloody Islam.
Felix Quigley says
Angemon are you prepared to accept that the greatest fear of Saddam was for the Iranian post 79 regime?
Angemon says
“Angemon…bit by bit I am patiently unpicking what you are claiming. Can you please put more flesh on this…
““ Assad must be defended” I said”
You did say that, and you have yet to give a reason for it. It’s not what I said that needs to be fleshed out…
“You claim he propped up the groups hes fighting against. Is he irrational?”
I know not of his mental state, I simply know what was going on at the time. The terrorist-supporting Assad claimed that the people protesting on the streets were terrorists. No terrorist acts were enacted. When the protesters called for the release of political prisoners, he released hardened jihadis. Then there were actually terrorists on the streets, who picked up arms and fought him. Frm that point there’s nothing irrational going on, simply him skewing the picture to make his previous claims true.
Angemon says
“Saddam the buffer against bloody Islam.”
Like I said, by the end of his regime, Saddam was courting the religious hard-liners. Under Saddam, from the mid-90’s onwards, Iraq was becoming increasingly islamized. Look up the “Return to Faith Campaign”
gravenimage says
Assad also backs Hezb’allah, which Jihad terror group destroyed Christian-majority Lebanon and wages violent Jihad against Israel–the idea that any of this is anti-Islam is just incredibly bizarre.
lebel says
“72% of Muslims in Tunisia want Shari’ah law, as do 82% of Muslims in Egypt–this last includes the stoning of women.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx#sharia
lebel has to keep lying about Islam, because he knows how horrific the truth is.”
I went to the source and found 56% rather than 72% for Tunisian and 74% for Egyptians.
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
When digging deeper we find that the same group is not in favour of Shariah staples like Polygamy. Second, the Islamists lost the popular vote which is clear evidence that the people don’t wan’t Shariah.
I know that arguing with you is futile because like most jihadwatchers you will resort to insults but since you at least provided a source which is legitimate, I made an expection.
Angemon says
“I went to the source and found 56% rather than 72% for Tunisian and 74% for Egyptians.”
From the source:
“When digging deeper we find that the same group is not in favour of Shariah staples like Polygamy. ”
What group, exactly, is that? And let’s say that a muslim wants sharia to be the law of the land but finds polygamy to be immoral. Does that mean they’re not pro-sharia? Or does that mean that they, through influences other than islam, they are simply against that specific issue while being in favour, for example, of death for apostasy and homosexuality, stoning for adultery, etc?
“Second, the Islamists lost the popular vote”
Citation needed.
BTW, exactly what is an “islamist”?
gravenimage says
lebel wrote, quoting myself:
“72% of Muslims in Tunisia want Shari’ah law, as do 82% of Muslims in Egypt–this last includes the stoning of women.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx#sharia
lebel has to keep lying about Islam, because he knows how horrific the truth is.”
………………………
Here we go:
World Public Opinion: 81% of Egyptians want strict Sharia imposed in every Islamic country
Pew Research (2010): 82% of Egyptian Muslims favor stoning adulterers
More:
I went to the source and found 56% rather than 72% for Tunisian and 74% for Egyptians.
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
………………………
Even if one takes these lower figures, they clearly give the lie to lebel’s claim he made above that “…most Muslims do not even want Shariah as we saw in Egypt, Tunisia and other places”.
Felix Quigley says
Lebel
Quoting from Pew is confusing because Pew is giving an OVERALL statistic. But it is who carries the day. Who is organized and therein is the great danger from the Muslim Brotherhood which is always organized. In this case Morsi and it took dramatic action by the army to avoid a very serious Islam dictatorship. Or as somebody here said you cannot fight Islam with a Fountain Pen.
“Across the 23 countries where the question was asked, most Muslims see no inherent conflict between religion and science. This view is especially widespread in the Middle East and North Africa (median of 75%) even though, as previously noted, many Muslims in the region are highly committed to their faith. Across the other regions surveyed, medians of 50% or more concur that religion and science are compatible. The one exception is South Asia, where fewer than half (45%) share this view.”
Felix Quigley says
One of the greatest, most deadly traps, that we are being asked to plunge ourselves into (by among others Gravenimage) is that it is possible somehow to fight the Islamic counter revolution by words. You would hope that this reality would eventually have entered into the cloudy brain of Gravenimage but it appears not. As somebody wisely said here it is not possible to fight such violence with a Fountain Pen. The Parker Pen is wonderful in every way but it has its limits, and this was the experience of how Morsi was overthrown. In other words what happened is that the religious fundamental dictatorship of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood was overthrown by the secular dictatorship of El Sisi leading the army and necessitating AN ARMY to do so. It is my opinion that the secular dictator El Sisi is a much clearer thinker on these issues than is Gravenimage.
gravenimage says
More claptrap from Felix Quigley:
One of the greatest, most deadly traps, that we are being asked to plunge ourselves into (by among others Gravenimage) is that it is possible somehow to fight the Islamic counter revolution by words. You would hope that this reality would eventually have entered into the cloudy brain of Gravenimage but it appears not.
………………………..
What tripe–I have never said that words are the *only* weapon we have against Islam. But this is ultimately a war of ideas, and many in the West are still in denial about the threat of Islam. Exposing the threat of Islam is indeed a significant part of the fight against Jihad and Shari’ah. whatever Felix Quigley may pretend.
More:
As somebody wisely said here it is not possible to fight such violence with a Fountain Pen. The Parker Pen is wonderful in every way but it has its limits, and this was the experience of how Morsi was overthrown. In other words what happened is that the religious fundamental dictatorship of Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood was overthrown by the secular dictatorship of El Sisi leading the army and necessitating AN ARMY to do so. It is my opinion that the secular dictator El Sisi is a much clearer thinker on these issues than is Gravenimage.
………………………..
Al Sisi is not secular. He is less toxic than was Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, but persecution of Christians and secularists is still rife in Egypt.
Felix Quigley’s implication that he wants to take oppressive Egypt, where most women are genitally mutilated and Christians and Atheists live in constant fear of Islamic violence is preferable to the free West shows that he is either profoundly ignorant, or something much, much worse.
Felix Quigley says
Two key points here in response to Angemon and Gravenimage:
1. Angemon claims that Assad released Jihadists from prison onto the streets and deserts of Syria. Maybe he did. I do not know. I want to investigate. I simply politely ask him for a source. Not coming from Angemon. Angemon asks others for sources all of the time. I am asking him for a source just this one time.
2. Gravenimage seems to take Morsi and El Sisi as the same. El Sisi took it upon himself as part of a dictatorship of the army of Egypt to put Morsi down, in prison. Do you support and defend El Sisi in this? Or are you sitting on the fence on this one? Try to answer Gravenimage without calling what I am saying “claptrap” that would be helpful in discussing these vital and difficult questions.
Angemon says
Felix Quigley posted:
“1. Angemon claims that Assad released Jihadists from prison onto the streets and deserts of Syria. Maybe he did. I do not know. I want to investigate. I simply politely ask him for a source. Not coming from Angemon. Angemon asks others for sources all of the time. I am asking him for a source just this one time.”
I made a post with several sources dating back to 2011. It contained urls for the original articles, and, as such, it underwent the way of posts with several URLs: flagged for moderation – an anti-spam measure. Since it’s apparently not up yet, I’ll post several posts, each with one single source and corresponding URL. I expect you take back the “not coming” bit.
2011:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syria-offers-general-amnesty/2011/05/31/AGTVcgFH_story.html?utm_term=.1fd4f7785b1f
BEIRUT — Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Tuesday issued a general amnesty for prisoners that includes those deemed to have committed political crimes, as pressure built from a 10-week-old uprising that his government has failed to quell with overwhelming military force.
The opposition swiftly rejected the offer as another ploy by the government to gain time.
Syrian state television said the amnesty covered “all members of political movements,” including the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, which led an armed uprising against Assad’s father in 1982. Membership in the party is punishable by death.
Angemon says
2013:
https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/former-prisoners-fight-in-syrian-insurgency-a-927158.html
Angemon says
2014:
https://www.newsweek.com/how-syrias-assad-helped-forge-isis-255631
Angemon says
2016:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/assad-henchman-heres-how-we-built-isis
Angemon says
2018:
https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/MAGAZINE-iran-russia-and-isis-how-assad-won-in-syria-1.6462751
Angemon says
Are those sources enough, Felix?
gravenimage says
Felix Quigley wrote:
Two key points here in response to Angemon and Gravenimage:
1. Angemon claims that Assad released Jihadists from prison onto the streets and deserts of Syria. Maybe he did. I do not know. I want to investigate. I simply politely ask him for a source. Not coming from Angemon. Angemon asks others for sources all of the time. I am asking him for a source just this one time.
…………………………..
Angemon offers numerous sources, above.
More:
2. Gravenimage seems to take Morsi and El Sisi as the same.
…………………………..
This is ludicrous. In my last post above I wrote: “Al Sisi is not secular. He is less toxic than was Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, but persecution of Christians and secularists is still rife in Egypt.”
This makes it *quite* clear that I consider Al Sisi to be less bad than was Morsi.
More:
El Sisi took it upon himself as part of a dictatorship of the army of Egypt to put Morsi down, in prison. Do you support and defend El Sisi in this? Or are you sitting on the fence on this one?
…………………………..
Al Sisi seized power, as those in the Muslim world are apt to do. I have already said several times that I like any sane person consider him less malignant than was Morsi, but this does not make Egypt under him any kind of civilized nation, nor does it mean that Egypt is still not a terrible place for women, Christians, secularists, and any free thinkers.
Here are a couple of recent tales of the abuse of unbelievers there:
“Egypt: Muslim mobs force closure of four churches, cops arrest priests instead of attackers”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2019/01/egypt-muslim-mobs-force-closure-of-four-churches-cops-arrest-priests-instead-of-attackers
and:
“Egypt: Atheist blogger arrested for criticizing Islam”
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/05/egypt-atheist-blogger-arrested-for-criticizing-islam
So much for the state of freedom of religion and freedom of speech under Al-Sisi. There are, of course, many more appalling stories from Egypt.
But Felix Quigley does not care and demands that we applaud this barbarism. He does not even say anything critical of the treatment of Atheists there.
As for Al-Sisi putting his rival in prison, this does not surprise. Morsi had been–at best–neglected in receiving medical care, at worst he had been abused, and died in court. I am *no* fan of Morsi, who would have done the same or worse to Al-Sisi if he had remained in power, but this does not mean that I am apt to laud brutality in the Muslim world. I doubt that a hard-core Communist like Felix Quigley would be able to understand this, though.
But no–I am not “on the fence” about this, nor have I ever been. Al-Sisi is about as good as the victims of Islam are apt to get. This–again–is damning with faint praise, intentionally so.
Yet more:
Try to answer Gravenimage without calling what I am saying “claptrap” that would be helpful in discussing these vital and difficult questions.
…………………………..
I could call this idiocy *much* worse than claptrap, of course. But if Felix Quigley is so thin skinned that he cannot bear to have anyone speak honestly about his dishonesty, then I can just expose it without using a term he unsurprisingly finds deeply uncomfortable having to deal with.
Felix Quigley says
I have come across this very interesting and important paragraph in Wikipedia
“In 2011, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that the primarily Sunni protesters “have a lot of work to do internally” in order to gain the broad public support needed to form a genuinely national movement. She added, “It is not yet accepted by many groups within Syria that their life will be better without Assad than with Assad. There are a lot of minority groups that are very concerned.”[13] The opposition does include some prominent Alawites and Christians, but it is predominantly Sunni.[14]” end quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism_and_minorities_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War
What right have these American politicians like Clinton got to interfere so blatantly in the politics of another country.
What bloody right have they got!
Angemon says
See my posts above – I made one post containing all those references but it was automatically flagged for moderation – an anti-spam measure triggered when one post has too many URLs. Are those sources enough?
Angemon says
“What right have these American politicians like Clinton got to interfere so blatantly in the politics of another country.”
Do you have a problem with foreign interference in general or just when it is done by Americans?
gravenimage says
Very few people here at Jihad Watch are fans of Hilary Clinton, as Felix Quigley well knows.
That this is being said by someone who has openly called for the destruction of the free West and the violent imposition of the horrors of Communism on us makes this outrage on his part pretty rich, though.