“Their side”? I think this says a lot more about who you personally believe is on your “side” vs the other “side” than Omar.
Of all the things the murdering scumbags who killed thousands on 9/1/1 did, being muslim didn’t piss me off the most. Even the fact that the murder cheerleaders among muslims were, and remain unapologetic about the part they played in those murders. But the profit driven corporate and government policy that the Nation of Saudi Arabia, which teaches, and finances acts like it to this very day does. But we need their oil, so it’s all okay with us.
The outrage of our nation is based on inconvenience, and discomfort, not ethics.
Tris
All this only applies in cases where simple bigotry isn’t the entire answer.
“CAIR was founded after 9/11”
Not true (already noted).
"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 really vague. But if it refers to supposed acts of prejudice, why didn’t she just say that? It would be well received on the left and all the media. It’s clear to me she was being vague to try to downplay 9/11, and she has a vested interest in doing so. What else would she be vague about?
"Starting to lose access to our civil liberties” is also not at all true. She was elected to Congress and still is free to say what she said, but freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism.
Not only every Muslim, in fact (although she may have meant it that way; after all, she was addressing a Muslim audience), nor only immigrants, nor merely brown people. Everybody in the US and in many other countries has lost civil liberties as a consequence of 9/11. Many attacks on civil liberties which would have been considered completely unacceptable on 9/10 are applied or excused on account of “security” after 9/11.
Not true, but it certainly became relevant to the experience of Muslims in America in a way that it hadn’t been previously.
And so what? I think that if people are going to judge someone’s attitudes toward 9/11, then listening to one line out of a 15-20 minute isn’t really fair. Sure she could have chosen her words better. There are probably any number of times on any given day when the same could be said about any of us. Like I said, so what? We’re all reacting to a manufactured controversy, and if anything, the reaction lends credibility to the concerns she has voiced before about dealing with anti-Muslim prejudice in the US.
People can lose their freedom not only from laws themselves but also in terms of how the law is applied, which I think is her point. If Muslims are being subjected to additional scrutiny at airports or by having their Mosques under surveillance, then that’s a loss of civil liberty. We can debate the particulars of degree, I suppose, but that’s a loss of freedom - the freedom to be treated like any other American without prejudice.
This is, as I said before, profoundly untrue. If she’s being purely practical and greedy, she has a vested interest in playing up 9/11, because:
- She’s an American, goddammit; and
- She needs to make it very clear to bigots, using very simple, small words, that 9/11 was perpetrated by psycho murderer cultists and not by mainstream Muslims.
What vested interest do you imagine she has in downplaying 9/11? Do you think she believes all Muslims like 9/11, so making it seem less bad makes Muslims look better? Do you believe she supports the goals of al Qaeda and so wants to cast them in a good light? Where are you going with this “vested interest” thing?
What needs to be put into perspective is that Rep. Omar, for all of her love of terrorism :rolleyes:, has been among the harshest critic of Saudi Arabia – at a time when the president vetoes an amendment to stop their barbaric campaign in Yemen. The Republicans mostly support Saudi Arabia as well, so it’s not just Trump. They knowingly support a state sponsor of terror, and a country that spreads radical Islam that they claim to condemn. Hypocrisy knows no bounds with these scumbags, and ignorance knows no bounds for the morons who fall for these culture wars.
Seriously, her blithering right wing critics can just have a nice big cup of shut the f___ up already.
I’m calling it. Trump’s next campaign slogan will be Omar’s face and hers will be links to editorials in her defense.
I think Omar’s lack of experience is hurting her. As time goes on she will learn to more effectively convey her points in a way not to be taking out of context. Given the audience her speech was directed at, I don’t consider “some people did something” as offensive. Moving forward, she should describe such people as extremists and zealots.
Context is often everything. Still, the “some people did something” is an avoidance and THAT is what people heard and if nothing else, her understanding of what will be used as a sound bite is sub-par.
You’re contradicting yourself. Context is important, but “somebody did something” is only significant when it is pointedly taken OUT of context.
You’re suggesting Omar is at fault for how other people willfully or stupidly misinterpret her comment.
A lot of things seem dismissive if you take them out of context. If you listen to the words in context there’s nothing outrageous at all about it; the meaning is very clear, and it’s not meant to pretend killing three thousand people was no biggie. It is flatly dishonest to take a person’s words out of context on purpose to make them sound as if they mean something they did not.
Do you know who, on 9/11, responded to what had happened by saying “The functions of our government continue without interruption?” God, what a fucking asshole, huh? A dreadful terrorist attack and the guy just coldly replies that the post office is still working? What a dick. That was imam Mohammed bin… no, I’m just kidding. It was George W. Bush. That’s a direct quote. Of course, I’m taking it out of context; if you read it in context, it’s not cold at all and makes perfect sense.
It’s the right’s playbook. See also: “invented the internet,” “you didn’t build that,” “what difference does it make?” and every other time they “paraphrase” to reverse the meaning of something and build outrage.
Also out of the right’s playbook: when your guy in the White House is under investigation for impeachment revive an old dead thread from last Spring to try to redirect the conversation to anything else.
… since we’ve had a number of invitations to imagine various variations on a theme in this thread, I’d like to propose that we imagine some very, very slight revisions to the original quote and see how they sound to the ears of our respective imaginations.
Let’s confine ourselves to just the “they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties” portion.
I wasn’t at that speech and I haven’t heard any recordings, but I think it’s reasonable, from the structure of the syntax, to place emphasis thus:
“… they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”
Hmm. Well, that sounds a little more realistic, and not quite so problematic. Let’s add in just one adjective. How can we describe that “something”?
“… they recognized that some people did something [horrific] and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”
or maybe
“… they recognized that some people did something [inexcusable] and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”
Now, granted, that’s not what she said. But if adding in one adjective can make her statement sound so … accurate and reasonable, I’d submit … then how unconscionable could the original statement be?
If Tim Apple were here, I would ask him.
We seem to hold Trump accountable for all his “flubs” and he puts absolutely NO thought into what he says. Why not Omar?
Sometimes that’s known as a Freudian slip.
Are you kidding? Trump says a dozen worse things every day. How is that comparable to, at worst, a single instance of a thoughtless turn of phrase?