Ilhan Omar

The Ilhan Omar 'Some People Did Something' Controversy Is Bad-Faith Outrage-Mongering on All Sides

Anatomy of a nontroversy

|

A clip of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D­–Minn.) describing the 9/11 terrorist attacks as an incident in which "some people did something" went viral on social media last week.

What followed was a vicious cycle of thunderous conservative indignation, complete with President Donald Trump tweeting a video mashing up Omar's remarks with footage the planes hitting the Twin Towers, followed by an overreaching liberal backlash against the backlash, in which Democratic presidential contenders Beto O'Rourke and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.), as well as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–NY), all accused Trump of inciting violence against Omar.

The plain truth is this: Omar's comments may sound flippant when taken out of context, but they were nowhere near as offensive as the right made them out to be—and Trump's tweet, though thoughtless and unfair, did not represent any kind of violent threat. Everybody who got worked up about Omar was stoking unfounded outrage. And they were doing it hypocritically, since this is the kind of thing each side tends to hate when the other side does it.

Here is the full context of Omar's remarks, delivered at a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) event last month:

Here's the truth. For far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen. Frankly, I'm tired of it. And every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it. 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.

"Some people did something" is not the most sensitive way to describe 9/11, but the right—and the Trump tweet, specifically—made it sound like that was all she had said. She wasn't minimizing the tragedy; she was suggesting that what some Muslims did threatened all Muslim Americans' civil liberties. Omar was arguably incautious with her choice of words (and CAIR was actually founded in the 1990s), but those who dragged her for this were engaged in"patriotic correctness," a right-wing variety of political correctness.

Omar's remarks did not merit this level of denunciation. But as a sitting congresswoman, she's in the political fray; she should not be immune from criticism, wrongheaded though it sometimes may be. Some of that criticism crossed a clear line: Omar has claimed that she received death threats in the wake of Trump's tweet. No one should be threatened for expressing their opinions, and the government should take whatever action is necessary to make sure Omar is safe. But even if Trump calling attention to Omar's comment had the effect of causing her to receive death threats, Trump himself did not threaten or incite violence, in either a strictly legal or a metaphorical sense. It would be no more appropriate to accuse Trump of inciting violence against Omar than it would be to hold the far left at fault for the 2017 congressional baseball shooting, which was perpetrated by a Sanders supporter who had appropriated some views of the Republicans-are-the-real-Taliban variety.

In general, don't criticize a politician because some people might take it too far and threaten her would be a bad rule, one that would make it more difficult to hold politicians accountable when they really have earned a good lambasting.

NEXT: Texas Cops Arrest About 45,000 Drivers a Year for Minor Traffic Offenses

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Some people did something” is not the most sensitive way to describe 9/11, but the right—and the Trump tweet, specifically—made it sound like that was all she had said.

    “Some people did something” isn’t all she said, but then this isn’t the only controversial statement she’s made. She’s purposely engaged in outrage brinkmanship in the past, and it shouldn’t be a surprise to her or anyone else that her public statements are now being treated that way.

    Pelosi’s statements are the ones that are indefensible. Suggesting that Omar’s statements shouldn’t be publicly criticized for fear that MAGA hat wearing nuts may go over the edge is pathetic for a number of reasons. Among them? In her heart, I suspect Pelosi may hope something bad really does happen–that was she can blame Trump for it and the Democrats can use it as an issue in 2020.

    1. It’s not all she said? Go on and enlighten us as to what she said that was so bad.

      1. Are you really unaware of her statements making use of antisemitic tropes (for which she’s apologized) and other statements she’s made questioning other American’s loyalty because of their support for Israel? If you make yourself a lightning rod, don’t be surprised if you get struck by lightning. When you make highly incendiary statements about other people, don’t be surprised if they start to treat your statements in the future as if they’re highly incendiary. I don’t see why that observation should be controversial or hard to understand.

      2. Look in case you haven’t following her then I suggest you do your own homework. She is being coached by CAIR and is using the effective strategy of making comments that incite and then hiding behind her sex, religion and color. I am sure as a self loathing white progressive (who like a disease now infect Reason) nothing she says bothers you which is fine but I don’t find her particularly bright. I don’t find any of the incoming freshman Dem’s bright.

        1. How odd. Omar is exactly the thing that got the freshman Dems elected–a smugly brainwashed mystic faithful to the initiation of force! This is the same thing as Republican, only with a different Prophet. All the rest, the altruism, sacrifice, coercive collectivism and superstition remain as the reasons her district voted against the Republican and can’t read well enough to even know whether there was a Libertarian candidate as an alternative.

    2. Yep,

      It’s true that we should not blame all Muslims or Muslims in general for 9/11, but it is ridiculous to hear that lecture from the woman who said that every time politicians don’t give you what you want it is a result of the Jews hypnotizing them.

      1. Really? She said that? Huh…

        1. The Left is apoplectic to see that their own tactics are being used against them.

          1. Iow…she didn’t say that…

  2. I don’t think the part about “some people did something” is the outrageous part. The problem is where shy lies about CAIR being founded in response to 9-11. And it was founded by Hamas.

    When 25 [Hamas] members and supporters gathered at a Marriott Hotel in Philadelphia on October 27, 1993, they were unaware that the FBI was monitoring their deliberations. The confab was a brainstorming exercise: how best to back Hamas and derail the Oslo Accords while concealing these activities from the American government? . . . In the U.S., Hamas was [by this time] perceived as the principal enemy of the popular “peace process.” . . .

    That was where [a] new organization would come in. . . . The new entity’s Islamism and Hamas promotion would have to be less “conspicuous.” It would need to couch its rhetoric in sweet nothings like “social justice,” “due process,” and “resistance.” If it did those things, though, it might be more attractive . . . and effective. A Muslim organization posing as a civil-rights activist while soft-pedaling its jihadist sympathies might be able to snow the American political class, the courts, the media, and the academy. It might make real inroads with the . . . progressives who dominated the Clinton administration. . . .

    Despite its Hamas roots and terror ties, the most disturbing aspect of CAIR is its accomplishment of the Muslim Brotherhood’s precise aspiration for it. Thanks to its media savvy and the credulousness of government officials and press outlets, which have treated it as the “civil-rights” group it purports to be rather than the Islamist spearhead that it is, CAIR has been a constant thorn in the side of American national defense.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/04/how-and-why-hamas-founded-cair.php

    1. That would appear to be the more relevant part.
      I wonder if it was a deliberate lie or just ignorance. Neither would surprise me.

    2. a decade ago CAIR was under legal threat because of “providing aid to terrorist organizations”. There was quite a bit of controversy about that. As far as the public consciousness goes, it is probably the defining aspect of CAIR.

      While the “polticians are playing politics with tiny turns of phrase” is a legitimate take (if more of a truism than an in-depth analysis), the CAIR/Hamas/Islamist nexus would be a more interesting and perhaps informative deep-dive into what is going on.

      A turn of phrase that works before a CAIR audience doesn’t play in front of a general audience… that much is obvious. But why? Who were these folks, and why are they there? Are they really fighting against bigotry and religious oppression in the US? That hardly seems likely – but it is possible, I suppose. Or are they more of a fundraising/propaganda organization for Islamist organizations in the Middle East, particularly Hamas?

      A US Congresswoman being involved with CAIR might be a pretty big story… Certainly stories of US politicians of Irish Catholic heritage were a big deal during the days of the IRA. And they had to defend their allegiances in interviews with the press… a press who looked into the connections of the “charitable organizations” they were involved with. It would be nice if today’s press would do the same.

      And since NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN seem incapable of doing such legwork, perhaps it falls to alternative press like Reason to dig the facts out.

  3. Omar has claimed that she received death threats in the wake of Trump’s tweet.

    Who cares? Death threats are the “your mother” of the new era. Anybody who takes that garbage seriously deserves all the emotional damage they get.

    1. If the threats are serious, call the FBI and get the person doing it arrested. Giving death threats to a member of Congress is a big deal and not something the FBI would overlook.

      The fact that she didn’t call the FBI and no one has been arrested says that she is lying. She didn’t get any death threats or at least not any credible ones.

      1. OR Pelosi has had enough and is sending phone threats with a voice synthesizer.

        (yes, the calls are coming from inside the House).

        1. There is always that possibility.

        2. (yes, the calls are coming from inside the House)

          *applause*

        3. 🙂

    2. Paul and Scalise among others say “Death threats? You’re adorable.”

    3. “”Omar has claimed that she received death threats in the wake of Trump’s tweet.””

      It’s just some people saying something.

    4. Nah.

      It’s kind of round-about, but it’s a “Boy who cried wolf” scenario. The police, who have decided that most folks who “cry wolf” (make death threats) aren’t serious, and so they don’t take it seriously anymore. This has emboldened folks to “cry wolf” more readily, treating it as if threatening a person’s life is not a serious matter. As such, when someone “cries wolf” and is serious, no one shows up, and it’s a “too little, too late” scenario.

      The way to fix things is obvious: punish boys who “cry wolf” (make death threats) when there aren’t any wolves around (when they aren’t serious).

      TLDR;, if the townsfolk had beat up the kid for crying wolf the first time it happened, there wouldn’t have been a second time. Similarly, if we treat all death threats as serious threats and proceed accordingly, we won’t have spurious death threats anymore.

      1. Moderators: I accidentally flagged this comment, but didn’t mean to. Maybe a way to undo that when you accidentally click on it would be a nice feature. . .

        1. And I wasn’t actually replying to TrickyVic, I was replying to EscherEnigma.

          Didn’t quite get all the loose ends tied up over the weekend?

          1. Oh, I see – I made EE’s comment go away.

            Yeah – you should definitely find a way to allow us to undo clicking on that. Slippery fingers and half the comments go away.

    5. Yeah, a death threat could be someone typing “DIAF” in a comment section. I’m sure we’ve all received “death threats” here. But it’s such an easy way to make yourself seem like the victim that people just can’t help themselves.

      1. wishful thinking is not a death threat…

    6. Mia Khalifa is the only person I can think of who changed her career because death threats made her so afraid.

      1. Credible death threats?

        Salman Rushdie would probably have something to say about that….

        1. But he didn’t really change his career. If anything it made him better known as an author.

  4. Except of course the predicate of her comment was built on a lie to make it sound reasonable.

    CAIR was founded in 1994, not after 9/11.

    1. After the first WTC bombing in 1993?

  5. http://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/15/paris-notre-dame-cathedral-on-fire-reuters.html

    The Notre Dame is burning to the ground. This is tragic. I want to cry.

    1. Tragic indeed.

      Sic transit.

    2. It doesn’t appear to have been terrorism, and I’m glad for that.

      1. It doesn’t yetappear to have been terrorism, and I’m glad for that

        FTFY

        1. My money is on some construction/renovation worker improperly disposing of oily rags.
          Most bad things in the world, even in France, are still not terrorism. And if it was terrorism, I would think someone would want to announce that fact, or there isn’t much point.

          1. Could it be a “Hackensack hello”?

    3. Oh no, an old building is on fire. How will life go on?

      1. Rev Kirkland lived there as a bell ringer. Where’s he going to go now?

      2. Yes, beautiful historic buildings mean nothing. Good god you are a fucking idiot.

        1. Yeah, not crying over an old building certainly makes one an idiot. Every now and then I wonder if there is any group of people among which you are normal. Lucky for you, a bunch of nitwits just like you also regularly post here.

          1. Yeah, not crying over an old building certainly makes one an idiot

            Yes it does. It means you have no appreciation for beauty or history. That makes you a drooling moron. Seriously, it is people like you that destroy civilizations.

            1. It means you have no appreciation for beauty or history. That makes you a drooling moron.

              I almost feel bad for how completely unhinged you are.

              Seriously, it is people like you that destroy civilizations.

              Yeah, thankfully I can spend all the money I was saving to go to France and burn down a building. Maybe I’ll book a trip to Greece to finish knocking down the Parthenon instead.

              You are a lunatic with no sense of proportion.

              1. There isn’t anything unhinged about regretting a cultural treasure of Western civilization being destroyed in a fire. I guess you think you’re being cute or something.

                1. regretting a cultural treasure of Western civilization being destroyed in a fire

                  Why don’t you read the comments where he calls people sociopaths and blames them for destroying civilizations then get back to me.

                  1. If he suggested that indifference for cultural icons like Notre Dame might be a threat to western civilization, I’m not sure I disagree with him. You’re not suggesting that your cavalier indifference to western culture is somehow helpful in that regard, are you? Shitting on everything is what makes people assholes. If you don’t like being called an asshole, you might try to stop shitting on everything–up to and including icons of western civilization when they’re on fire.

                    1. Watching you guys is like watching a couple of monkeys trying to hump a football.

                  2. Gravedigger’s humor is the term for mirth in response to tragedy. Someone might develop it, because those near him always relied on him to take care of things during tragedies so that they could focus on letting the tears flow.

              2. Maybe I’ll book a trip to Greece to finish knocking down the Parthenon instead.

                Do you have plans for Mother’s Day?

              3. Maybe I’ll book a trip to Greece to finish my tour of homosexual oddities.

          2. “Yeah, not crying over an old building certainly makes one an idiot.”

            That’s not what he said idiot. Although yes, that also makes you an idiot.

            You’re an idiot because you act like your opinion on whether it is something matters to anyone but you.

            1. You’re an idiot because you act like your opinion on whether it is something matters to anyone but you.

              Oh I get it now. We’re only allowed to express opinions that agree with people who are sad about buildings.

              1. You can express your idiotic opinions all you like. But you will be called an idiot for having them.

                1. To be fair, most of us think you are all morons.

                  1. What ‘us’?

                  2. To be fair, you appearently know a lot about moron, you being one and all.

            2. Seeing as he agreed with the sentiment, I don’t think it matters that it wasn’t part of his original statement.

      3. Looks like somebody did something – – – – – –

    4. I hope they got the Knute Rockne statue out.

      1. Nice….lol

    5. It is tragic and sad. But I don’t think there are many ancient cathedrals that haven’t burned down at some point or other. History marches on.

      1. The news report I heard said that much of the structure was saved. If the masonry is intact, they can rebuild.

        1. And rich people and companies are already pledging hundreds of millions of Euros/Dollars for reconstruction.
          I’m sure a lot of masonry will need restoration, even though it’s still standing. Fire does bad things to masonry.

  6. She wasn’t minimizing the tragedy

    Bunk. Of course she was.

    1. Robby is not an idiot. If he was he could be forgiven for making such an assertion. He knows what she was doing.

      1. He also knows the article is yet another example of mendacious “to be sure”ism. Crenshaw said her comment was “unbelievable”, a rather mild and dismissive ‘criticism’.

        THAT is what was subsequently characterized as “a hysterical attack on a muslim woman”, and the comment for which someone posted on Twitter that “You should die, you eyeless fuck!” (THAT comment was removed, unlike the death wishes sent to the Covington kids)

        Then came the claims that any criticism of a Muslim Congresswoman is violence, because the proglodytes are projecting their own violent fantasies onto the largely non-existent right wing army of assassins they have made up.

        Yes, the outrage of both sides is mostly in bad faith, but the EQUIVALENCE is all in your head, Robbie.

    2. Her argument was that CAIR had to be founded as a reaction to the reaction that resulted from 9/11, and conflated it with the general degradation with civil liberties as a whole.

      This is another situation where the Three SocJus Musketeers–Cortez, Omar, and Tlaib–say something that has point of legitimate concern, but do so in the most retarded ways or is irrelevant to the subject at hand. It doesn’t help that she was completely wrong (or lying, both are probabilities) about CAIR’s origins, and to blow off 9/11, which is *the* defining event of this country in the last 20 years, in such a blithe manner demonstrates either a profound lack of empathy, or awareness of her cultural surroundings.

      Ultimately, Omar continues to fit the stereotype of a back-biting, entitled foreigner who thinks their very otherness gives them carte blanche to say anything they please without any sort of criticism in return.

      1. I guess we are to forget that the Holy Land Foundation accompanied CAIR. When you add that to the equation it doesn’t paint them in a positive civil rights light.

  7. Fuck off with your bullshit. If there were a self proclaimed Nazi at a modern rally referring to the holocaust as “some people did something” and a major politcial party thought that was “A OK,” you’d be pissed and rightfully so. Now what if that Nazi were a congressman or a senator?

    1. Bingo. Imagine if Donald Trump said “some people in the 40s did something and we all ended up with our civil liberties under threat because of it” about the Holocaust. Reason and Robby would have a stroke. Yet they apologize for and justify this nasty, antisemitic, socialist bitch.

      1. Reason has this bizarre SJW Muslim defense crap going on. Check out the super-serious “Some Muslim kids got kicked out of some rando pool for wearing cotton” article from last year.

        As others have said, saying a similar thing about, e.g., the Holocaust would not elicit a similar effect. And this article would never have been written if Omar wasn’t of a certain SJW-protected religion.

        Nevermind upgrading the website, how’s about upgrading the “writers”?

    2. Cy…..My thoughts exactly. What Ilhan Omar said were 1. Incredibly thoughtless and 2. Incredibly tactless even when taken in context.

      Then when given the benefit of hindsight and time to reflect…she makes no apology. Un-effing-believeable.

      1. Not apologizing is the one smart thing she did. We all know apologizing gets you in worse trouble then you were in originally. Never apologize to anyone that is outraged – right or left.

        1. Well, we don’t know that for sure, since no one on the left has ever come close to apologizing for anything they’ve ever said.

          We do know that those who bend the knee to the SJW outrage mobs gain absolutely nothing by it.

    3. To get it out of the way, obviously Omar sucks, there is no denying that. But rationality still matters, and the derangement in these comments is incredible.
      9/11 = ~4000 deaths. Nazism = Millions of deaths.
      There is no comparison. Comparing her to a Nazi and acting as though the the Democrats are A OK with millions of people being killed is asinine. Your comment reveals a deep bias which impairs your thought processes.

      1. So the Ds are A OK with thousands of people being killed?
        Good point, Val.

      2. To make a more fair comparison, the World Bank publishes data for deaths in conflicts by year and country. The data for Yemen shows that the death toll was bellow 3,000 for every year except for 2015. I do not think many Reason fans would say that the deaths in Yemen are simply people doing something.

      3. Hey!! It was fucking AOC who posted that “First they came for the socialists…” poem in relation to criticism of Omar. SHE’S the one who equated criticism of a politician with the Holocaust. Nobody on the other side, that I’ve seen, equated 9/11 with it.

        And if equating 9/11 with the Holocaust is inappropriate (agreed), how much more abysmally stupid and vile is comparing the criticism consisting of the single word: “unbelievable” to the Holocaust??

  8. Politician is tone deaf, story at eleven.

    1. The story here is that she is not tonedeaf. What she said is what her constituents and a good number of Democrats think. 9-11 was only a bad thing insofar as it made life harder for protected groups.

      1. Let’s be blunt. She does not appear to think it was a horrible tragedy. She needs to be more clear one way or the other.

      2. Indeed. It’s like the old “Women and Minorities Hardest Hit” joke. When someone gives you Onion-grade soundbites, I hardly think there’s any need to apologize for mocking her.

      3. What she said is what her constituents and a good number of Democrats think. 9-11 was only a bad thing insofar as it made life harder for protected groups.

        Nobody thinks that.

  9. Yeah, it wasn’t just Muslims who had their civil rights infringed after 9-11: we all did. Or does she think that the Patriot Act, and all wiretapping of communications, and of course all the airport groping isn’t happening to everyone else as well?

    1. She knows they are happening to other people, she just doesn’t care . She is a tribalist and couldn’t care less about anyone outside her tribe.

      1. And, again, this “threat” from Trump was just ACCURATELY quoting her.

        Her being somebody with more a track record than most of anybody in Congress for making idiotic remarks in her brief run in Congress. Who’d have guessed a woman who married her brother would be such an idiot?

  10. What has the muddled headed Muslima had to say about little Landen Hoffman, the five year old little boy who was thrown from a third floor railing at the Mall of Mogadishu by nutty negro Emmanuel DeShawn Aranda?

    Progressive women of color had better take note of the fact that black men constitute much more of an existential threat to them than the Orange grifter. Instead of whining about whitey and demanding reparations and white privilege, progressive women of color should focus on what steps can be taken to reduce the propensity of black men to engage in socially dysfunctional behavior.

    Perhaps the anti-racist diversity is our strength rainbow coalition creeps may not have noticed, but, according to the NYPD, blacks accounted for 75% of suspects in criminal shootings. Whites? 2%

      1. Children getting thrown off balconies is funny stuff. You called it dude.

          1. God you are boring.

            1. He wouldn’t be so bored if it was you or me that had thrown a 5 year old black kid 40 feet from a third floor balcony.

              1. I think none of us would be surprised if you had.

                1. You have no appreciation for art or arcitecture. If that is not a sure sign of being a sociopath nothing is. There is something seriously wrong with you Sparky.

                  1. You have no appreciation for art or arcitecture. If that is not a sure sign of being a sociopath nothing is.

                    I literally can’t even with this comment.

                    1. And yet you did anyway.

                    2. It is what you are.

                  2. He calls himself a misanthrope, but you’re not supposed to point out that he acts like somebody who doesn’t give a shit about anything.

            2. There is nothing quite like bitchy conservative outrage.

              1. Cry more about it then be the boring loser who fucks everything.

                1. Ah, Tulpa picked a new handle. Makes sense now.

              2. No, there is always Crusty jugler bitching and whining about conservative outrage or anything else.

                Seriously, no cares about your bitchy whinny act anymore. It is just sad. Get a new act or go somewhere else.

                1. You are all fascinated with each other, and I am fascinated by you all.

                  1. No you are not. You are too stupid to be fascinated by anything except maybe the odd shinny object.

                  2. It’s like Cheers. Once you know everyone’s name, the conversations are more fun.

              3. Yea, it’s no butthurt-progressive pretending to libertarianism.

        1. Or, you know, Reason’s resident racist using terms like ‘nutty negro’ and none of the regulars even bothering with a ‘tsk tsk’. But no, I’m sure Crusty was laughing at attempted child murder and not that.

          1. Tsk tsk.

            Race realism must offend you.

            1. Shouldn’t you be busy measuring someone’s skull?

              1. Shouldn’t you be busy counting the number of skulls crushed by Mugabe’s men?

        2. Yeah, that wasn’t the funny part.

          It was a pretty ridiculous comment. Citing something that happened in Kenya as support for a statement about American black men.

          1. To be fair, the event happened at the Mall of Minnesota, which was sarcastically called the Mall of Mogadishu.

            It’s more an issue about how we are allowing crazy people to wander the streets, rather than give them treatment or keep them in jail (the violent ones, at least) than it is about race.

    1. Regarding criminal shootings, for 2017. Whites, btw, constitute about 33% of NYC’s population.

      Why wouldn’t a news organization, imbued with integrity, and a desire to call to account those who insist upon the redistribution of wealth from one racial group to another, relentlessly focus on how much more likely it is that the race seeking the redistribution is far more likely to engage in violent crime than the race from which redistribution is demanded?

      1. Because it isn’t relevant?
        And maybe you shouldn’t ignore the fact that, I don’t know, maybe for the entire history of American civilization, until roughly 50 years ago, that the law explicitly discriminated, including in ways that directly imposed financial costs, against a particular race? Maybe they want to be paid back for those massive financial harms that the government deliberately inflicted on them, with no justification whatsoever except evil? Now THAT would be relevant.

        1. So blacks are just getting pay back, Val?
          You keep making really weird points.

          1. Val errs in that he presents the narrative that until 1969, all of America was laboring under a de jure system of racism. Typical progressive prevarication.

            1. Sorry, you lost me when you said “news organization, imbued with integrity”. You’re referencing an alternate timeline or something.

    2. You clearly aren’t racist at all.

      1. A race realist, bro.

        You seem to be offended by the facts to which I refer.

    3. When an entire neighborhood does not trust the criminal justice system, the man of the house is expected to be the militia instead of earning a living. This traps families in a multi-generational cycle of violence and poverty. Single women feel so afraid they look for anyone to date so that they can have protection. Young men worry that not fathering a child makes them stand out as different enough to be on the militia’s bad list. People are afraid to tell outsiders what that neighborhood is like for fear of getting on that list.

      Responsibility for the criminal justice system is necessary to break the cycle. That means a combination of court oversight by citizens and the political process.

  11. I’m appalled! Also, would like a mug.

  12. By “some people”, I’m assuming she means Mossad, right?

  13. Exactly how are Muslims second class citizens after 9/11? Outside of progressive fearmongering?

    1. I know some Muslims who were targeted for violence and harassment in my town … by Democrats … with a long history of saying Antisemitic/ Anti-Zionist things … who oppose same-sex relationships and complain about racism … and start mentioning their support for Muslims every time they need backup in an argument.

      1. Some Muslims certainly faced unfair attacks, verbal and physical in the wake of 911. But it’s hardly to the level that makes a whole group second class citizens.

        1. And based on what stats we have…Jews were still more victimized by hate crimes.

          In a battle of who is ruder to who — Muslims will not usually end up doing very well.

  14. “Omar has claimed that she received death threats in the wake of Trump’s tweet.”

    OMG. Literally worse than 9/11

    1. So death threats are ok because 9/11? Nice reasoning.

      1. You’re doing it wrong

      2. Stalin said, one death is a tragedy and a million deaths are a statistic. I understand noticing and responding more to threats against one’s own life, because a person has the necessary knowledge and responsibility to keep himself alive. However, don’t expect the grieving at one person’s funeral to exceed the grieving after 9/11.

      3. I would settle for “9/11 is as bad as death threats”. But I’m supposed to be more appalled by the latter, I guess.

      4. It’s just some people saying some things. No biggie, right?

  15. And that NY Post cover was The. Best. Ever.

  16. CAIR is a propaganda arm of Hamas. Those are exactly the kind of “some people” that murdered about 3,000 Americans on 9/11.

  17. Here’s another situation where the context doesn’t make things any better.

    “Here’s the truth. For far too long we have lived with the discomfort of being a second-class citizen.”

    Seriously? Because of 9/11?

    Let’s see…a week afterwards, President George W. “Satan” Bush went to an Islamic center to say that the attacks were contrary to “the Islamic faith.”

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?166111-1/presidential-visit-islamic-center

    He made sure that non-Muslims got their share of airport harassment.

    And check out these quotes:

    https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/ramadan/islam.html

    After that, President Obama said we’d been too mean to Muslims worldwide under the prior Presidency.

    Finally, we finally got a specific mention of a Muslim ban from Trump – not a ban on citizens, but a ban on foreign immigration until we can work things out. That could certainly qualify as xenophobic, but the crazy lady was saying this second-class citizenship started with 9/11.

    So, let’s see, some people did something, and that’s significant because it made Muslims second-class citizens whose religious faith George W. “embodiment of evil” Bush praised.

  18. So…some people did something and Muslim citizens of the U. S. became second-class citizens?

    I have some links to George W. “Satan” Bush, soon after 9/11, reaching out to American Muslims and saying nice things about them *and* their faith. No indication this was hypocritical.

    Civil-liberties violations have been open to all, Muslim and non-Muslim.

  19. “Omar was arguably incautious with her choice of words (and CAIR was actually founded in the 1990s)”

    Is incautious a Robbyism for wrong, or lying?

    1. To be sure, steps have to be taken to maintain the strict “both-sides”ism Robby is sworn to.

  20. BOTH SIDES!!!

    1. Free at last, free at last, than God almighty, free at last.

      (do the the Koch’s know they are paying someone to moderate this place?)

  21. disturbs shit for shit-disturbing’s sake … she’s easy to ignore

    1. I’ll take Things never said by Reason authors about the alt-right.

      What’d I win?

      1. moderation of your comments?

  22. And it this day and age of political divide you expected something else? What? Everyone holding hands and singing kumbaya?

  23. Omar has claimed that she received death threats in the wake of Trump’s tweet.

    I wonder what her reaction would be if conservatives were to describe the alleged death threats as “some people said something”.

  24. Is it just me, or is everyone finding their comments “awaiting moderation?”

    1. I got “awaiting moderation” when I posted the texts of two links in the same post.

      Still waiting. But I put the same information in some new posts which didn’t get flagged.

      1. At this risk of moderation all I said was “Both Sides” and “Is incautious a Robbyism for wrong, or lying?”

      2. You can make millions off your laptop, go here http://www.ihopethisisntarealsite.com

        1. That worked, now let’s try two links:

          You can make $$$ just sitting on your butt at home, my sister’s mother-in-law’s nephew’s cousin’s roommate bought a new Maserati

          http://www.thisbetternotbearealsite.com

          http://www.whathappenedtothewitchdoctorspam.com

          1. Robby’s point is interesting, but I made $w43923.45 in just three month of working at my home. It’s easy! Click the linkfining out how you to can meak this easy moneys http://goatse.cx

        2. So I can do one link, but I just tried two and it went to moderation.

          1. Let me try George Carlin’s Seven Dirty Words, cover me

            1. Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits

              1. Go on…

                1. No more squirrels.

                  Now secret squirrels.

              2. Now let’s get even nastier:

                -Abortion stops a beating heart
                -The U. S. should have a border
                -That guy Jordan Peterson sure has some good ideas

                1. cause I’m a liar
                  yeah I’m a liar
                  I’ll tear your mind out
                  I’ll burn your soul
                  I’ll turn you into me
                  I’ll turn you into me
                  cause I’m a liar, a liar
                  a liar, a liar

                  1. (It’s OK, I lied about being a liar)

                    1. Yeah, so did Zeno, and now he’s dead.

                2. Weak sauce, I’ll raise you with

                  Robby needs to get a real man’s haircut

                  1. Hey, the put my posts up at last!

  25. ”patriotic correctness,”

    Not content to let Trump and Congress get away with being hyperbolic doo doo heads, Reason and Cato invent “reverse racism” for the generation that hasn’t yet been subjected to the stupidity of “reverse racism”.

    Congress and Trump are gonna Congress and Trump, Reason and Cato, OTOH, voluntarily choose to be like this.

    1. No, they didn’t invent anything. This comment section proves, among other things, that patriotic correctness is definitely a thing.

      1. No, they didn’t invent anything.

        You’re absolutely right I figured from my phrasing that it was obvious that they were rehashing tired ideas and tropes. My mistake.

        This comment section proves, among other things, that patriotic correctness is definitely a thing.

        You are aware that you’re defending the woman who’s last slip up in the news was questioning people who held dual loyalty, right?

        I don’t care what nation anybody involved pledges loyalty to (or not), you people are beyond parody. Racism cuts both ways. Political correctness cuts both ways. Patriotism cuts both ways. Go on, keep accusing deplorables of patriotic correctness*, see where it gets you.

        Might as well trademark the phrase “Patriotic Correctness: The Wrong Way To Think About America” and retire to bask in the warmth of your own smugness.

  26. Please never use the term “nontroversy” again. Please.

    Patriotic Correctness is a nice turn of phrase.

  27. If many Americans are outraged at the comments by Representative Omar, maybe it has to do with her tendency to play the card of perpetual victim. In the remarks under scrutiny, she minimizes the 9/11 attacks and the ensuing loss of life, while complaining about the inconveniences faced by some Muslim-Americans (see, I can downplay things, too). Even in her so-called apology about her anti-Semitic remarks, she succeeded in making it all about herself by closing with the words “just as I expect people to hear me when others attack me for my identity.” Heap these offences with her (purposeful?) deception about the founding of CAIR and her soft-peddling of Islamist terrorist organizations, and can you really blame those of us who find much of what she spouts suspect?

  28. Well, old site, new site, whatever; Robby is still Robby

    1. You just know that it was his Vox buddies calling him out. They’ve all been toeing the line defending Tlaib, looking at his relative silence, so were probably giving him shit for not ‘defending her free speech.’

  29. the right—and the Trump tweet, specifically—made it sound like that was all she had said.

    No one on the right claimed or implied this was all she said. They pointed out the worst of what she said just as Robbie is doing now. But they did a better job since at least she said what they are criticizing while Robbie just made it up.

    She wasn’t minimizing the tragedy;

    Actually she was. If you think that’s not a big deal just say it. Don’t pretend it didn’t happen.

  30. For crying out loud, Robby. Are you serious? Your article was all tongue-in-cheek, right?

  31. Anyone with the remotest capability of experiencing empathy might be able to understand what being a post-9/11 Muslim in the West might feel like considering the very rude and exaggerated response of the Bushies to the attack. But even Bush managed deliberate words meant not to inflame a race war. Trump of course thrives on such division. Remember when Obama was divisive because he was black, and that was a bad thing?

    1. “Remember when Obama was divisive because he was black”

      No. I do remember him being divisive, though.

    2. “You all stand convicted of WrongFeelz!”

      Note how racebaiterTony condemns Trump for creating division.

      The Left always projects their hatreds and crimes on the Right.
      Every accusation from a Leftist is an unwitting confession.

    3. Remember when Obama was divisive because he was black,

      You misspelled “fantasize”.

    4. Meh Tony, the only time I heard someone yelling threats of deportation to a Muslim on the sidewalk in my town, the screamer was my friend’s lily White baby-mama who felt entitled to more cash from him even though child protection services had already put the kids in a foster home on account of her knife throwing habit. When a White American woman decides to be a Muslim long enough to get pregnant and then runs back to her old crew so they can harass him endlessly for cash and sport … OK, I can see why some Muslims don’t like Democrats. Those Muslims should join the libertarian team.

      1. The president of the united states called for a complete and total ban of muslims entering the country.

        1. …yet he didn’t remotely come close to proposing one at all. Odd.

    5. Tony
      April.15.2019 at 5:37 pm
      “Anyone with the remotest capability of experiencing empathy might be able to understand what being a post-9/11 Muslim in the West might feel like considering the very rude and exaggerated response of the Bushies to the attack.”

      Anyone with the remotest ability to think might well understand what a fucking lefty ignoramus we have here.

      1. You’re really taking the word “ignoramus” and running with it, huh? How many decades does it take for you to learn a new 4-syllable word? Or are we stuck with this one?

        1. I think he should call her a scalawag. Or a rapscallion.

  32. The “nobody should receive death threats” argument really falls short when an elected US representative is peddling the same sort of anti-Semitic rhetoric that helped the Nazis convince Germans to distrust Jews enough to the point the Holocaust was even remotely plausible. Consider it a preemptive strike.

    1. Sadly, the Nazis didn’t need to do much convincing to get Germans to distrust Jews…anti-Semitism has been a huge problem in Europe for centuries, and remains so to this day.

      Also, consider what a preemptive strike? Just curious.

      1. Making threats against genuinely hateful people should be considered akin to the logic nations use when they threaten to attack hostile powers who have yet to technically provoke them. Nothing wrong with making deplorable people afraid, especially when they ride a growing wave of third world anti-Semitism into office. A less incendiary version of this logic is Big Stick.

        Glow harder. You wish I was inciting violence.

        1. So it’s cool if leftists make bomb threats against the next venue that decides to let Ben Shapiro speak? How about rape threats against Candance Owens? Fair is fair after all, right?

          1. You’re essentially missapplying “the ends justify the means” and taking the next moronic logical step to “the ends disqualify the means.” Whatever methods are needed to remove literal Nazis cannot possibly be considered invalid because there are also pejorative Nazis. This is some next level bullshit akin to “if you kill your enemies, they win.”

            1. Nope, just pointing out that you and Antifa have much more in common than you’d probably care to admit. Same tactics, different targets. I personally don’t think that using intimidation to get people to behave how you’d like to is a good thing. But that’s just me.

              1. There are times when a prank in response to threatening tactics is justified. When people keep spray painting Nazi symbols, we can spend an enormous amount of time, money, and political capital on peace rallies, or we can make it clear that Gay Pride spray painting is the knee-jerk response until it stops.

                1. Anyway, I have to go to sleep soon. I might be in Battery Park tomorrow.

              2. Antifa misapplying tactics to milquetoast Republicans is completely unrelated. You didn’t even try to address my point. The necessary strategies to deal with genuine evil in the world are not invalid simply because extremists misapply them to non-evil people.

          2. Some people said some things.

          3. Yeah, that shit already happens, bignose. They just don’t weaponize it. They don’t refer to themselves as “death threat survivors”.

            If Omar is actually concerned about any of the threats, she should report them. Ideally to Nancy Pelosi, who has a Bailiff who can protect Omar. I’m guessing they can, since the name is capitalized, like a boss. And if a Bailiff is inadequate for her safety, there’s other armed and violent security forces that can be brought out. There are also investigative agencies that can check the threat level of any messages she’s received.

            Otherwise, the fucking trolls, griefers, chans and lulzhounds can be ignored. In either case she should shut the fuck up about it instead of using it a reverse shield.

          4. At this point, it’s not so much “let’s allow people to make bomb threats against Ben Shapiro and rape threats against Candace Owens”, it’s more that this kind of stuff is already happening in spades, and it’s only a question of when the so-called “fascists” are going to respond in-kind….

  33. It would be better were Rep. Omar to be far more careful with her words.

    It would be much better were Pres. Trump to stop lathering the bigoted rubes, half-educated slack-jaws, and superstitious victimization junkies.

    1. It would be much better if Arthur L. Hickbot could come up with something more original than his NPC programming allows.

      1. I gather you prefer your bigoted (misogynistic, anti-Muslim, anti-brown person) comments unleavened by anything other than pure right-wing backwardness and hatred.

        Tough.

        1. “I gather you prefer your bigoted (misogynistic, anti-Muslim, anti-brown person) comments unleavened by anything other than pure right-wing backwardness and hatred.”
          I gather you’re a bigoted, dishonest imbecilic lefty asshole.

        2. What is this, scenario response #4?

          1. Wait! Wasn’t there an update to, like, rev-alkirklandv2.exe? About the time “clingers” stopped appearing in every post? I didn’t think it was much of an improvement, tbh.

            But, in the OP…”lathering”??

    2. ‘It would be better were Rep. Omar to be far more careful with her words.’
      It would be better if a bigoted, dishonest imbecilic lefty asshole got lost, bigoted, dishonest imbecilic lefty asshole.

    3. “It would be much better were Pres. Trump to stop lathering the bigoted rubes, half-educated slack-jaws, and superstitious victimization junkies.”

      Oh, he could do that, I suppose, but considering how easy it is to get these people riled up, I understand why Trump does it. Just look at how these people responded when he criticised Omar’s remarks! Putting Omar’s life in danger, really?

      But these bigoted rubes, half-educated slack-jaws, and superstitious victimization junkies can’t resist an opportunity to express their bigotry towards Trump, or Republicans, or people in fly-over country in general.

  34. Once again the right wing wants to define the standards for speaking about 9/11. I remember all the flak they gave President Obama because he would not call Moslems extremist. Now Rep. Omar did not conform to their standards and is catching flak. The truth is Rep. Omar will get flak for what ever she says and she should not worry about it. President Trump should not worry about what he says, because my expectations from him could not get lower.

    1. Lefties get angry when they can’t define the terms of the debate.

    2. Moderation4ever
      April.15.2019 at 8:54 pm
      “Once again the right wing wants to define the standards for speaking about 9/11.”
      Once again M4e seems to avoid RTFA, and once again makes an ass of himself. Keep it up; you’re good at it.

      ” President Trump should not worry about what he says, because my expectations from him could not get lower.”
      Well, I have no idea what Trump thinks, but my expectations of you are asinine posts and general stupidity.
      You always deliver.

    3. And why should we concede the defining of the debate to Lefties? Defining the standards for talking about 9/11 should be a group effort — no one (not even 9/11 “truthers”) — should have their voices completely silenced.

      And the truth is, Omar deserves the flak she got. She deliberately tried to minimise something that scarred a nation. It’s like saying “some people did some things on April 19”; whether we are talking about Oklahoma City, or Waco Texas, or Lexington and Concord, we are reducing significant events to the equivalent of friends gathering together to play Bridge on a Saturday night.

      Why should we concede the debate to such disingenuous people?

  35. Some people said something (about Ilhan Omar). No big deal, Robby.

  36. […] came in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did something.” Many […]

  37. This is not a bright person. She ran on ‘victimhood’ and was elected by sexist bigots like the rev asshole. So far, her entire opus it defined by whining about how she is the victim of something, while sucking at the (generous) public teat. Some ‘victim’; almost of the Bernie school.
    Of course she makes stupid comments; that is the limit of her intelligence. With any luck, she will continue to make an ass of herself and get (properly) beaten up as a result, and will get re-elected by MN lefties to become a side note in congress.
    Suffice to say she’s a fucking lefty ignoramus, of which we have many here, all spouting bullshit that anyone of average intelligence finds pathetic at best.
    BTW, she could take that rag off her head and act as if she were living in the 21st Century.

    1. Sevo
      April.16.2019 at 12:13 am

      “Suffice to say she’s a fucking lefty ignoramus…”

      You repeat yourself, sir.

  38. She didn’t say “some Muslims”.

    She didn’t say that.

    And it matters.

  39. No, I disagree and think your (and actually Reason’s) anti-Trumpism has blurred your view of this woman. My standard – should-be-unnecessary – disclaimer: I am not Trump’s #1 fan – disagree with most of his policies and dislike him as a person. That said, I believe he is sincerely pro-American – stunning at a time when Democrats are anti-American, Libertarians are so-so, and Republicans are too spineless to stand up and say they are. Omar on the other hand has had nothing good to say about the country that allowed her family here and “saved” her from the fate most women Somalis suffer. She is part of Phase 4 of the 5-phase stealth jihad the Muslim Brotherhood (a CAIR supported/supporting entity) outlined many years ago. So a little “over-reaction” to her effrontery and arrogant little girlish tee-hees is not necessarily a bad thing…

    1. If you think libertarians are insufficiently ‘pro-American’ its because you view ‘America’ through a forced collectivist lense where we must all pull together to accomplish the social projects our ‘leaders’ deem.

  40. I see we kept Tony and Rev, and picked up a few new morons as well with the change over.

  41. But even if Trump calling attention to Omar’s comment had the effect of causing her to receive death threats, Trump himself did not threaten or incite violence, in either a strictly legal or a metaphorical sense.

    Right. He threatened violence in the bodily sense, in a political context—as he does. Remember the tough guys Trump said he has on his side—the bikers, the police, and the cops—the ones who, “. . . don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.” Do you remember that? That is a nothing short of a threat of fascist violence, targeting “the left,” as Trump said. Because the left threatened him with the violence of investigations.

    Of all the things now proved against Trump—because he did them in public, not because of Mueller or spying or whatever—that tough guys remark is the one that would top my bill of impeachment. Only dereliction accounts for the pass that Trump got on that from Congress.

    Soave forgets (what’s wrong with him, what kind of ideological blinders can make anyone so oblivious?) that Trump is not some powerless internet commenter, he is the President of the United States—a person with near-limitless capacity to inflict violence, or to incite violence, by virtue of his office.

    Nobody else has to be held to so stringent a standard, because nobody else is President. Anyone who doesn’t understand that should not be President—nor for that matter, should someone who doesn’t understand that be commenting on presidential politics.

    1. Obama’s threat of unilateral exercise of violence on Americans through the deliberate undercutting of the legistlative branch with his ‘pen and phone’? That gets a pass?

    2. This will be the post that marked Stephen’s final transition to LOLCow status.

    3. “…Of all the things now proved against Trump—because he did them in public, not because of Mueller or spying or whatever—that tough guys remark is the one that would top my bill of impeachment….”

      That’s because you’re a fucking ignoramus with a raging case of TDS.

    4. Still isn’t violence, and still hasn’t happened. And frankly, I think every President has given people the impression you can only mess with them so far, politics or not. And I’m okay with that.

      Unless you want to pretend no other president has been feared, and someone who pretends that should not be commenting on presidential politics.

    5. Which side has a group called “Antifa” that goes around saying “it’s ok to punch a Nazi!” and then defines “Nazi” as “anyone I disagree with” and act accordingly?

      And which side has patiently endured these attacks, knowing that at some point, they are going to be pushed too far, and it’s going to be a *very* bad day when that happens?

      Ironically, the side that wants to “punch a Nazi” is also the side that wants to ban guns, while the side that pushes hardest for the right to keep and bear arms, is also the side that is showing the most constraint….

  42. And every single Muslim in this country should be tired of it. 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.

    It is offensive. Its offensive because it shows her lack of knowledge about anything going on around her.

    CAIR came into existence in 1994, not ‘after some people did something and were started to lose access to our civil liberties’.

    And the ‘we’ she’s talking about? That’s only Muslims. Because CAIR could give a fuck about anyone else’s civil liberties.

  43. Oh please. Is this Hyporborean naivete at work?
    She knows damn well what she’s saying and doing.
    Don’t be useful idiots.
    She shouldn’t be talking to CAIR in the first place. And she’s left a pattern of goofs and gaffes to lend some insights into her thinking. She and the other dinks are bringing ‘Palestinian stye politics’ to Congress.

    The DNC can downplay this but they have a bit of an existential problem on their hands.

    Moroever, I find that a refugee from Somalia scolding and lecturing Americans about how shitty their country is (insert BS left-wing social cause du jour here) after they welcomed and saved her ass to be unseemly.

    I’m of an age where I remember the big waves of immigrants coming to North America and can honestly say never heard any of them ever say a single bad thing about the nations that welcomed them. They became fervently patriotic FULL STOP.

    1. @Rufus
      That’s why I get a violent cringe whenever I hear the mantra that has “inclusion” in it. The way it has always worked, everywhere, and should still work, is that people who want to flee the shitholes we are to sympathize with their desire to remove themselves from and who get here, have to INCLUDE THEMSELVES into the culture that exists already. It’s should never be some kind of ‘bend-over-backwards’ accommodation required of the native people.

      I agree Somalia is much in need of this womans’ wisdom and political acumen.

  44. Will ‘some people did some things’ be the new ‘you didn’t build that’?

    1. It will join “no one’s ever gone” and “Don’t you people have phones?”, replacing “learn to code”. Also, “Honk! Honk!” is replacing “kek”, which of course replaced “much lulz”.

      We’ll be passing out a sheet at the next meeting of the “Alt-right Standards and Procedures” Committee.

      Oh, and heads up, “dog whistle” is replacing “lol”.

  45. I’ve got to say, I don’t see how putting this remark in context improved it any. Obviously it wasn’t “Bwah ha ha! I’m glad they died!” bad, but it absolutely was downplaying how horrible 9-11 was, in order to make her complaints about the response seem more reasonable.

    And worse, pretending that 9-11 resulted in any real threat to the civil liberties of Muslims. The government stood on it’s head to avoid any such thing!

    1. I remember Bush making that clear left, right and centre explaining the county wasn’t at war with Islam but radical Islamic terrorism.

      1. I seem to recall that it was “radical (indistinct mumble) terrorism”, but that’s probably just my memory having fun with me. The point is, while 9-11 did result in some serious civil liberties violations, that are still ongoing, they weren’t directed specifically at Muslims.

        There were even complaints at the time about how the government was going out of its way to avoid addressing the actual nature of the threat, it was so determined not to notice the religion of the perpetrators.

        1. Not only that, but there was a distinct lack of anti-Muslim backlash throughout America as well. Granted, a few incidents here and there, but nothing to the extent of what was feared would happen.

  46. The Left has been irresponsibly outrage mongering for a long time. Being retrained and responsible has pretty much been proven a losing strategy, especially when dealing with a lying twunt like this idiot. Her statement is fundamentally untrue. CAIR was founded years before 9/11, by terrorists, to facilitate Lefty intellectuals who wanted to play Redical Chic games with some plausible deniability. It is as respectable as the Mafia.

    1. Actually, I think the Mafia is more respectable to be blunt.

  47. I love it! Front page coverage of Saracen berserker kleptocrats and ku-klux Bubba kleptocrats is the best possible advertising for the Libertarian Party. The Nixon law pays the looters to ignore us, so badmouthing each other is the Last Tactic Standing. Hopefully voters will remember those tu-quoque fests.

  48. She is a fucking tool, knows she is an instigator, and tops it off with either a blatant lie or blatantly incorrect information. Congress will be all the better when they kick her to the curb (hopefully).

    But it is super fucking rich watching the usual Trump fellators all over the internet up in arms about her. This is literally his playbook.

    Boiling something down to a vague/misleading statement that is likely to offend some sensitive whiner? Showcasing a lack of prudent thought, proper knowledge of a topic, and at the same time putting it in such a way it is guaranteed to piss off someone (opposite your political beliefs)? Then topping that off with some facts that are completely incorrect showing you are either ignorant or 100% disingenuous?

    If everything orange retard says is totally cool and the lefties are just whiney babies, then sack the fuck up and get over it when one of them emulates your dear leader.

    1. Which only points up the massive gulf between what this sort of article says vs. the Reason pants shitting over whatever thing Trump spews.

  49. Except that, that something was the intentional murder of 3000 people. But yea, no big deal.

  50. […]  Ilhan Omar went on to refer to the September 11th, 2001 attack on the twin towers as just that “some people did something.”   Omar has also has downplayed the role of Al Queda in the world causing a New York City Police […]

  51. […] in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did […]

  52. […] in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did […]

  53. […] in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did […]

  54. […] in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did […]

  55. […] in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did […]

  56. Plenty of conservative sites have presented remark within the full context. Just one example.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/45913/ilhan-omar-uses-iconic-words-george-bush-defend-amanda-prestigiacomo

    The context only makes her bad choice of word WORSE. For the left, a national tragedy like 9/11 is not an occasion to mourn the death, celebrate heroism of rescue workers and come together as a nation to stand against a universal enemy. Instead, it becomes a dangerous moment which their usual bogeyman can exploit a come hunting for their victims. All their energy and condemnation will shift to FUTURE victims.

    What was their immediate narrative to the debunking of Smollett? “He made it harder for other victims to come forward”. No one expressed any regret or contrition over a coward who smeared an entire group of people and threw his friends under the bus.

    Obviously civil rights were violated post 9/11. But the dems stopped caring about surveillance when Obama became president and CAIR would heartily support violation of first and second amendments. She trivialized a national tragedy to advance her team’s false “hate crime wave” narrative. Her remark within the context only clarifies her larger point.

    1. I am always amused when the response to “but you took it out of context!” is a strong “You want context? I’ll give you context!” and it makes the original quote worse.

  57. […] in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did […]

  58. […] in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did […]

  59. […] in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did […]

  60. […] in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did […]

  61. […] in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did […]

  62. […] in the wake of the controversy over Minnesota Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s decision to refer to the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, with “some people did […]

  63. Oh, God, no! They’ve implemented “track backs”. The threads are going to be spammed with “comments” that aren’t really comments.

  64. Robby — fuck off, slaver! Stick to your weekly “Kennedy” appearances – the grown-ups will take care of the commentary regarding the so-called religion of peace.

    Your moral relativism is sickening – Omar needs to take a long jump off a short pier – my understanding is Muslims don’t know how to swim – reminds me of the results from the Salem witch trials.

  65. Is this Peak BothSides Soavism? I hope so, but fear it is not

    1. Somebody tell Bobby about the libertarian “ThirdSide”, or at least dig out the old 1980s YAF newsletters defining libertarian heretics as fiscally conservative yet militantly pro-choice.

  66. Where or not Congresswoman Omar’s remarks were as offensive as they seemed, taken in context, is clearly a matter of opinion not observable fact. I know people who were killed in the Towers. “Some people did something” is a deeply offensive characterization of their deaths. It is not unreasonable to hold that opinion. It’s not a matter of patriotic correctness; that’s ridiculous. Its a matter of simple human decency and respect. The President’s response may have been over the top but was neither an explicit nor implicit lie. In contrast, “some people” did “something” is at very best disingenuous if not an outright lie. What did you do today? “Oh, something.” “Well what specifically did you do?” “I hijacked four passenger jets and crashed them into buildings killing all the passengers and more – roughly 3,000 people in total. Just something.” Your position is absurd.

  67. The article could be improved by deleting all the Soave and deboner hand-wringing and leaving the links to the chit chower between the Landover Baptist Church and the Mohammedan Jihadists for Allah. A few links to Pamela Geller’s AtlasShrugs site would be the cherry on top. Let voters remember Omar whenever Democrat is mentioned, and associate Jeff Sessions with Republican whenever they see a voting machine.

  68. Why what Omar said is important:
    1. It is the most vague and slighting reference to the WTC attack since it happened. That’s 18 years.

    Since Rep. Omar is the most visible Muslim U.S. politician it brings up several serious questions:
    1. Does Omar feel that it is Islamophobic or otherwise insulting to Muslims to refer to the WTC attack as inspired by Islamic extremists or use the work “Jihad”.
    2. Does Omar feel that it is Islamophobic or otherwise insulting to Muslims to refer to the WTC attack as an attack?
    3. Are her remarks indicative of the way most Muslims feel about the WTC attacks?

  69. Ilhan has a responsibility to think clearly before she speaks. After all she represents her district and hundreds of thousands of people. Perhaps it’s her naievete but surely she must recognize people of her culture committed the acts on 9/11. People are not going to forget it especially when it can be relived so easily on the internet.

  70. Paul and Scalise among others say “Death threats? You’re adorable.”https://www.jcsuitsoutlet.com/jewelry/bracelets.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.