Omar accused of treasonous plot with Qatar

[Maddy]

Do you have an example of Omar being an apologist for FGM?

You have misquoted me.

That's been the elephant in the livingroom since the beginning. . . How is it that an apologist for a culture that claims the right to dismember a woman's genitalia against her will ends up in this position to begin with? Is a person whose culture absolutely precludes her from making decisions independent of patriarchal authority disqualified from acting as a US Congressional representative by virtue of the fact that she is de facto incompetent, controlled by who-knows-what unelected, unaccountable persons or entities?

[Kriegsspiel]

How is it that an apologist for a culture that claims the right to dismember a woman's genitalia against her will ends up in this position to begin with?

Mutilating penii is part of the American culture, but lots of males are politicians.

I'm not sure what argument this point advances, but surely you don't equate the removal of a foreskin with the various extreme forms of FGM. Review the anatomy. The closest anatomical approximation in a male would be the complete amputation of the penis coupled with the construction of a crude opening for the excretion of urine.

The circumcision debate is fine, and no doubt there are men who feel violated by having had this procedure performed on them during infancy, but the reality of that procedure puts it on par with the removal of a skin tag--a far cry from the radical procedures performed in muslim cultures for the purpose of disabling women for life.

I was making the point that male US politicians are usually proponents of American culture, which mutilates genitals too. I don't think we need to get into a excretion of urine contest about who is better at it.

[moda0306]

Do you have an example of Omar being an apologist for FGM?

You have misquoted me.

That's been the elephant in the livingroom since the beginning. . . How is it that an apologist for a culture that claims the right to dismember a woman's genitalia against her will ends up in this position to begin with? Is a person whose culture absolutely precludes her from making decisions independent of patriarchal authority disqualified from acting as a US Congressional representative by virtue of the fact that she is de facto incompetent, controlled by who-knows-what unelected, unaccountable persons or entities?

That wasn't a quote... more so an assumption that your accusation had more teeth/specifics, especially considering how much almost every politician has been an apologist of a culture that (insert terrible institutional practice here), but actually defends the practice... many of whom are controlled by who-knows-what unelected, unaccountable persons or entities.

[dualstow]

I don't think we need to get into a excretion of urine contest

LOL!!
Perfect

[Maddy]

No "contest" is needed, and none is implied. The fact is that there is no practice even remotely analogous to FGM in western culture.

No doubt there are men who will whine about being "mutilated" in infancy as the result of routine circumcision, and perhaps they have a legitimate gripe. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. The fact is that there are many examples within mainstream American culture of children being subjected to significant bodily intrusions against their will. We pull rotten teeth out of children's heads, inject them with vaccines, amputate cancerous limbs, sew up cleft palates, and perform a whole host of similar procedures--all intended in some manner to benefit the child or (in rare cases) to achieve a public health benefit. Not a one of them is carried out with the purpose of physically disabling a person in a ritualized expression of subjugation. To the contrary, FGM is a practice that, both symbolically and in actuality, expresses the nearly complete subjugation of a woman to to the will of her father or husband (and to an extended cast of male characters that make up the patriarchal society). It demonstrates, quite graphically, that she has no control or prerogatives when it comes to even the most personal aspects of life and personhood.

So I find it more than a little eyebrow-raising that a female apologist for a culture that neither recognizes nor allows women to exercise any independent agency not only ends up in Congress but positions herself front and center with a bullhorn as some kind of vanguard of the Radical Left. Isn't the obvious inference that she is not acting of her own accord, but rather at the behest of unidentified persons or entities? The argument that every politician is corrupt and acting under the influence of others does not mitigate or detract from the dubious constitutional validity of this situation. Not only does the kind of "influence" we're talking about defy normal public disclosure and campaign finance laws, this woman's culture and beliefs may very well have rendered her incapable of acting independently and therefore de facto incompetent to act as a United States congressional representative.

[dualstow]

I like that first paragraph, Maddy.

As for the second, it is ironic isn't it. There have been accusations that AOC is being "run" by the Young Turks guy if I remember that right. Was it kriegsspiel who posted the video? What I've always felt about Omar is not that she's being controlled by someone else but that she is either blind to her hypocrisy or chooses to be. She picks and chooses what she likes about each culture. We all do, but most of us are not in office.

I would think a lot of anti-Israel people are happy ("At least she's working to defund Israel"), but overall I see her as dangerous.

[Maddy]

What I've always felt about Omar is not that she's being controlled by someone else but that she is either blind to her hypocrisy or chooses to be. She picks and chooses what she likes about each culture. We all do, but most of us are not in office.

Or maybe she's just not all that bright?

Occam's Razor prevails again!

[moda0306]

The argument that every politician is corrupt and acting under the influence of others does not mitigate or detract from the dubious constitutional validity of this situation.

Mandy...

Yeah it kind of does.

We are only given the options we have and the flaws of the alternatives “mitigate and detract” from the flaws of other candidates or representatives. Just like the fact that you’re an apologist for an orange buffoon with his finger on the button is somewhat mitigated by the fact that Hillary was awful. Not fully of course, as Trumpists still look like fucking clowns, but at least they have that going for them.

More to the point though, In what way is she an apologist for that culture? And how is she dangerous? To me she’s just a naive freshmen congresswoman like any other but with a leftist political angle. She’s far less likely to pose a threat to this country than most deep state perma-war mongers... you know like Elliott Abrams. Who she roundly and rightly smacked around on his history in South America.

[dualstow]

And how is she dangerous?

I know exactly how this would escalate if I responded the way I want to. Suffice it to say, I think she is no less guilty of inciting racial hatred than Orange Man. Guiltier, actually.

Either evidence will show some collusion between Omar and Qatar, in which case I’ll add it to this thread, or it won’t.

[moda0306]

And how is she dangerous?

I know exactly how this would escalate if I responded the way I want to. Suffice it to say, I think she is no less guilty of inciting racial hatred than Orange Man. Guiltier, actually.

Either evidence will show some collusion between Omar and Qatar, in which case I’ll add it to this thread, or it won’t.

Collusion with foreign (Israel, Saudi Arabia, Russia) and domestic (capital, oil & gas, banking) interests that differ from mine is common af. However I’m not about giving anyone a pass so if what she did borders on corruption let the facts speak for themselves.

I promise I won’t escalate any debate around her “inciting” racial hatred. I’m legit curious. I find the way incitement is used as an accusation (even towards trump) to be a bit odd as people tend to be really good at seeing incitement by their political enemies and not by themselves. Many have seen the criticisms of Omar to be “incitement” and while I find it all to be a bit much I am legit curious what evidence and examples people have to prove their case. I respect you dualstow so I promise I won’t go all snarky dick on you.

[dualstow]

I respect you, too, and I understand if you don't see it as incitement. There is no incitement in the legal sense of goading someone to get out their pitchfork. (Nor with Trump).

[dualstow]

I had similar reservations about Joe Lieberman when he was running for president a while back. As an Orthodox Jew, his first allegiance is to Israel, not the US. He responded to that, but as I recall never actually came out and said that he was breaking with tradition and giving top priority to the US. More broadly, is it OK for someone running for President to have dual citizenship? Technically that's permissible but I would not be in favor.

Hey Soph, following up on this, I'm not sure if it's true. I had to look it up because the grand total of what I know about Joe Lieberman is that he sounds permanently constipated when he talks.

I couldn't find anything about dual citizenship on his wiki page, and I also googled it. What I found was that Farrakhan has been spreading that around.

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan on Friday questioned the national loyalty of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph I. Lieberman, asking if his Jewish religion would make him more faithful to Israel or the United States.

“Mr. Lieberman, as an Orthodox Jew, is also a dual citizen of Israel,” Farrakhan asserted incorrectly.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

The article's author didn't explicitly state that both items are wrong, so I rechecked other sources. Lieberman doesn't have dual citizenship. He claims to be an "observant Jew." Orthodox? I'm not sure. His wife is a Reform Jew.

None of this changes the fact that, as I replied earlier, I also wouldn't want an Orthodox Jew in the White House, for various reasons.

[Maddy]

Just like the fact that you’re an apologist for an orange buffoon with his finger on the button. . .

I'm an apologist for the rule of law--nothing more, nothing less. But the most glaring examples of corruption and illegality are, at this time, coming from the Left.

And I see nothing of merit in the argument that corruption and illegality should be overlooked, accepted, or normalized simply because somebody else(s) has been equally guilty. That's the sophomoric mantra that has been at the heart of New Left doctrine for some time now: No one is, or can be, morally superior to anyone else. That pernicious ethic has served to justify and perpetuate a whole host of evils, and it has caused a sea change in the values of young Americans--once grounded in principle but now steeped in flat-out nihilism. Not only is corruption accepted and embraced, it has become fashionable to eschew the entire concept of principle--along with truthfulness, honor and virtue.

I've noticed something, Moda, and I've pointed it out before. You often attack under the guise of objectivity, utilizing some kind of pseudo-socratic method and appearing to be delving in good faith into the premises of your adversaries' arguments. However you can be counted on to consistently misrepresent the foundational premises of those arguments in a way that allows you to manipulate the debate. It's the antithesis of the Socratic method and was, in fact, the very technique used by the Sophists of ancient Greece to distort and deflect. You've done it twice to me now in this thread. I don't have the time or inclination to get into debates destined to be derailed by logical fallacies.

[Xan]

I had similar reservations about Joe Lieberman when he was running for president a while back. As an Orthodox Jew, his first allegiance is to Israel, not the US. He responded to that, but as I recall never actually came out and said that he was breaking with tradition and giving top priority to the US. More broadly, is it OK for someone running for President to have dual citizenship? Technically that's permissible but I would not be in favor.

Hey Soph, following up on this, I'm not sure if it's true. I had to look it up because the grand total of what I know about Joe Lieberman is that he sounds permanently constipated when he talks.

I couldn't find anything about dual citizenship on his wiki page, and I also googled it. What I found was that Farrakhan has been spreading that around.

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan on Friday questioned the national loyalty of Democratic vice presidential candidate Joseph I. Lieberman, asking if his Jewish religion would make him more faithful to Israel or the United States.

“Mr. Lieberman, as an Orthodox Jew, is also a dual citizen of Israel,” Farrakhan asserted incorrectly.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

The article's author didn't explicitly state that both items are wrong, so I rechecked other sources. Lieberman doesn't have dual citizenship. He claims to be an "observant Jew." Orthodox? I'm not sure. His wife is a Reform Jew.

None of this changes the fact that, as I replied earlier, I also wouldn't want an Orthodox Jew in the White House, for various reasons.

Yeah, that claim doesn't really make sense, I don't think. Surely for SOME Orthodox Jews it's true, what percentage I have no idea, but I don't think there's any way that calling yourself an Orthodox Jew means that you have to have your first allegiance to the modern nation-state of Israel.

[WiseOne]

Lieberman was orthodox at the time he was running for office - don't know about now. I looked into it because I thought his positions and views were mostly pretty reasonable.

He does or can claim dual citizenship under the Law of Return. However, Orthodox beliefs are very rigid compared to other sects, and the distinction between religion and the political state of Israel is not always clear-cut. This can create potential conflicts of interest, for example if the US developed a serious disagreement with a stand taken by Israel. Note that if you give this a pass, you are holding Presidents to a much lower conflict of interest standard than doctors. For example, I can't buy stock directly in any pharmaceutical or medical device company even if my work has nothing to do with the company in question, and this applies to immediate family members too. If I did that and someone wanted to throw the book at me, I could be subject to criminal penalties for doing so under the Stark Law.

As far as Ilhan Omar...you can't find this info online, but it is not clear whether she gave up her Somali citizenship when she became a naturalized US citizen. Since there is no mention of her renouncing it, it's probably the case that she hasn't.

[dualstow]

Lieberman ...
He does or can claim dual citizenship under the Law of Return.

Well yeah but so could I, probably. I’d hate to think that invalidates me from running for Pres, or that my first loyalty is not to the U.S.
Part of the reason I wouldn’t want an Orthodox Jew in the White House is because of the way it might reflect on secular or even reform Jews. (I don’t think I would worry about anything happening to Mormons if Romney were elected, though).

And obviously, for those who already have concerns about Israel- Palestine, espionage, tax dollars - there would naturally be a continuing concern about Israel-friendly presidents.

I just think the idea that American Jews are loyal to Israel first and America second, especially those in office, sounds like...well you know what it sounds like.

—-
Ok, let me get back to accusing and disparaging Omar.

[drumminj]

I just think the idea that American Jews are loyal to Israel first and America second, especially those in office, sounds like...well you know what it sounds like.

Let me preface this by saying my intent is to engage in legitimate discourse and not stir the pot...I suspect I'm treading into risky territory...

I'm not Jewish (am white, male, raised presbyterian but am agnostic/athiest at this point), but over the last 20 years have had a number of close Jewish friends. One thing that's always struck me is the ingrained preference/positive bias towards other Jewish people (as far as romantic partners), and Jewish businesses.

For example, a good friend got married and chose a horrible wedding photographer -- why? Because it was one of the two jewish wedding photographers in the area, and simply choosing of the full pool of available/qualified photographers in the area was out of the question.

Another example -- another good friend who would only consider marrying a Jewish woman and wanting to procreate to ensure the proliferation/propagation of the Jewish race (I'm not speculating on motivation here, but had a number of conversations with both the man and the woman of the couple on this subject)

I get that these are just anecdotes, and I get that most cultures have similar biases towards marrying/preferring their own. But is it really unreasonable to observe common trends in certain cultures and consider/possibly be concerned about how that might impact one's motivations and priorities?

One thing I try to do when considering political candidates is understand their beliefs, motivations, and principles rather than worry about a particular stance on a particular topic, as stances/topics change, and I'd rather vote for/support a value system that aligns with mine. If someone is always going to be biased against me, or prioritize a different set of principles than I believe in, I think that's wholly appropriate to consider and/or be concerned about, no?

(Edit: I'd also say that one's personal beliefs and one's political principles can certainly be kept separate. One thing I really respected about Ron Paul is while he may have personally believed certain things, he didn't believe it was the government's job to enforce/chime in on certain matters and such he would vote based on different principles than his personal beliefs, and as such I could support him even though I didn't agree with all of his beliefs)

[dualstow]

Seems kind of old school to me. I grew up with Italians who favored Italian services..small town. Maybe it’s because I’m not observant - my family transitioned from Reform to being 3-day-a-year Jews - but zero of the Jews I know are married to other Jews except for the older generation. (I’m in my forties).

Actually, with intermarriage on the rise, I think a case could be made that Jews really are going to be bred into non-existence, and in college I did meet an observant couple, dating not married, who encouraged me to find a Jewish bride. “You’re doing Hitler’s work!”, say some of the hardcore people who don’t like marrying outside of the faith/race. It’s just a drop in the bucket to the ones I’m related to, or are friends with. I and all of my siblings married Christians or atheists.

Someone tweeted the other day something like, Europe murdered its Jews en masse. The middle eastern countries killed some and kicked the rest of them out. Now they want the sole Jewish state to have an Arab/Muslim majority? No thanks. I pretty much agree with this. It’s a simplification, and although I keep up with my reading I’m tired of repeating the in-depth debate. But it would be inconceivable for me to betray the United States. Are people worried that Andrew Yang would betray the U.S. for China because he has a Chinese face and because Chinese people appear to stick together, marry each other and “favor Chinese businesses?” I’m not worried.

German Jews fought hard for their country in WWI and none of it mattered in the 1930s. They were all considered traitors, period, and blamed for Germany’s troubles. I don’t see how any of the above anecdotes justify questioning the loyalty of American Jews. There are thousands of Aldrich Ames for every Jonathan Pollard. Maybe tens of thousands.

I think it’s unlikely that Americans would ever elect an observant Jew to the presidency, perhaps due in part to these deep-seated suspicions. But if you look at the Left and the fiercest critics of Israel, you will find a ton of Jews: Noam Chomsky, Peter Beinart, too many to name, and countless non-famous ones.

That’s my take on it, anyway.

[WiseOne]

I just think the idea that American Jews are loyal to Israel first and America second, especially those in office, sounds like...well you know what it sounds like.

You're right and you deserve a little more explanation...

In my mind I draw a distinction between Orthodox and non-orthodox. Anytime you have someone with a rigid religion-based outlook running for national office that's a problem, but when you combine it with dual nationality it gets that much more concerning. For example, what would you think of a Catholic bishop running for office?

Ilhan Omar has the same potential issue: dual nationality and an outlook shaped by religion & culture. I'm still waiting to see how her legislative record shapes up - in her favor, she's already broken with tradition by running for office in the first place.

[dualstow]

Update:

testimony given in a Florida court, naming Ilhan Omar as a Qatari asset, also implicated a number of other prominent American citizens, including political activist Linda Sarsour and senior advisor to United States President Donald Trump, Jared Kushner.

https://m.jpost.com/American-Politics/F ... ets-609143

[Kriegsspiel]

It looks like they're not alleging he's a Qatari asset, but that he was extorting them or something:

I don't know Kushner personally, but the Qataris said Kushner told them: 'Choose one of two. You pay what I tell you to pay, or I unleash my dogs.'"
"The dogs being who?" she asked.
"Saudi Arabia and the UAE," Bender replied.
The Qataris were aware that as an investment the pay-off was a write-off, but told Bender, "'We just paid it to pay off his debt. And as long as he's in the White House, we have to do what he wants until we control the White House.' We as in Qatar," Bender clarified.

[Kriegsspiel]

On Oct. 30. . . the Department of Justice had assigned an FBI Special Agent in Charge, or SAC, to review Rep. Ilhan Omar's apparent, astonishing spree of felonies from 2009 to 2017. . . In October, the FBI SAC stated that the wide range of criminal activity suggested by the evidence against Rep. Omar may lead the FBI to expand the review to other federal departments.

Indeed, this has since occurred.

link