Former Navy SEAL Dan Crenshaw Destroys Ilhan Omar After Her 9/11 Comments, Huge Twitterstorm Followed (Video)
Ilhan Omar refused to call 9/11 a terrorist attack and the people that did it, terrorists’.
Omar spoke at a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) fundraiser last month, where she called upon other Muslim Americans to “make people uncomfortable” with their activism and presence in the society and criticized the Jewish state.
“…some people did something, and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”
She faced a huge backlash and the brave A American patriot Texas Rep. Dan Crenshaw was one of the first people to slam Omar for her description of the terror attacks.
“The first Member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 as ‘some people who did something,’” Crenshaw wrote in a tweet. “Unbelievable.”
Others have also jumped on to criticize Omar’s language, urging Democrats to condemn her remarks about the largest terror attack on U.S. soil that left nearly 3,000 people dead.
“9/11 terrorists & the terror attacks they conducted are described as simply ‘some people did something’? Every Democrat should be asked by the media if they disavow @IlhanMN’s statements. Every one of them” tweeted Andrew Pollack, father of a Parkland high school shooting victim.
“Ilhan Omar isn’t just anti-Semitic – she’s anti-American. Nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives to Islamic terrorists on 9/11, yet Omar diminishes it as: ‘Some people did something.’ Democrat leaders need to condemn her brazen display of disrespect,” said GOP chairwoman Ronna McDaniel.
As a reminder September 11 attacks, also called 9/11 attacks, series of airline hijackings and suicide attacks committed in 2001 by 19 militants associated with the Islamic extremist group al-Qaeda against targets in the United States, the deadliest terrorist attacks on American soil in U.S. history. The attacks against New York City and Washington, D.C., caused extensive death and destruction and triggered an enormous U.S. effort to combat terrorism. Some 2,750 people were killed in New York, 184 at the Pentagon, and 40 in Pennsylvania (where one of the hijacked planes crashed after the passengers attempted to retake the plane); all 19 terrorists died.
Social media censorship is suppressing the truth about the dangers of globalism and brutal cultures infiltrating the west. Please share this article wherever you can. It is the only way we can work around their censorship and ensure people receive news about issues that Democrats and the mainstream media suppress.
Scroll down to leave a comment below.
Previous articleWatch: Illhan Omar Refuses To Call 9/11 A Terrorist Attack
Full Film Below.
On February 16, 2013, The Grand Deception executive producer, Steven Emerson, challenged CAIR-LA Executive Director Hussam Ayloush to an open debate to discuss the facts featured in this film. Above is the amount of time that this challenge has gone unanswered.
Jihad in America The Grande Deception Buy The DVD
“God is our Goal. The Prophet is our leader. The Quran is our constitution. Jihad is our way. Death in the service of God is the loftiest of our wishes. God is great, God is great.”
This is the motto of the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in Egypt as a vehicle to establish a worldwide Islamic empire governed by shariah law.
The Brotherhood has transformed Islam into a political agenda, and this mix of religion and politics has become known as Islamism. Since the Brotherhood’s founding in 1928, the Brotherhood has established a presence in more than 70 countries, and countless organizations worldwide have adopted its strategy and goals.
Today, organizations created by or inspired by the Muslim Brotherhood enjoy considerable influence within the United States. The government, media, and law enforcement often turn to these organizations when they want the pulse of the American Muslim community. But critics- Muslim and non-Muslim alike- say that engaging these organizations poses a danger.
According to these critics, although members of these organizations might appear to be moderate, they support an interpretation of Islam that is at odds with democracy and human rights as is commonly understood in the Western world. Engaging these organizations bestows an undeserved legitimacy upon them and makes it easier for them to advance their secretive agenda.
The Grand Deception, a 70-minute film by the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT), traces the roots of Islamism inside the United States. This film examines the extent of Islamist influence within the United States and highlights the danger that Islamist influence poses for all Americans.
This documentary is based extensively on primary source materials, including original Brotherhood documents and audio and video from IPT’s extensive archives.
Let’s get the facts straight.
Fact: It is not Jefferson’s Koran. It is Mohammed’s Koran.
Fact: Jefferson owned a Koran to understand and defeat the Islamic Barbary Pirates. How many members of Congress have read the Koran & Sunna from cover to cover or have any idea what is written on these pages?
Fact: We have evidence of our forefathers’ reference to the Koran: John Adams and Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, March 28, 1786
Fact: Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran in which over 20% written in Medina is about violent jihad.
Fact: Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran that has 17% of its text from Mohammed’s time in Medina devoted to Jew hatred.
Fact: Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran that says that Muslims are superior to all and the non-Muslim (Kafir) is lower than animals. It also says a Muslim is not the friend of a Kafir.
Fact: Tlaib is swearing her oath on a Koran that says wives can be beaten.
Fact: Tlaib is disingenuous when she says ““I believe in secular government…“ According to Islamic doctrine, a Muslim must be governed by the Allah-inspired Sharia, because Kafir (man-made) secular laws are not worth following. So either she is not a good Muslim or she is using taqiyya, sacred deception, to advance Islam.
Fact: Tlaib is swearing her oath on a book that declares our U.S. Constitution is not the highest law of the land.
In short, Rashida Tlaib, by swearing her oath on a Koran, commits an act of sedition.
GOOGLE CLAIMS IT DIDN’T MANIPULATE SEARCH RESULTS FOR “ISLAM” AND “MUSLIM”
But we have known for well over a year that it did.
September 25, 2018 Robert Spencer
Now that even President Trump has complained about Google manipulating its search results, the social media giant’s underhanded practices are finally getting some attention. A Fox News report Friday noted that at Google, “internal emails show conversations between employees highlighting a desire to manipulate search results on the heels of President Trump’s controversial travel ban in order to mute conservative viewpoints and push ways to combat the ban.” Google claims that this remained on the level of discussion, and wasn’t implemented, but there is considerable evidence to the contrary.
The emails show that “Google employees suggested ways to ‘leverage’ the search engine to combat what the tech giant staffers considered anti-immigration rhetoric and news.” Specifically, “Google staffers suggested actively countering ‘islamophobic, algorithmically biased results from search terms “Islam,” “Muslim,” “Iran,” etc.’” But all is well, Google would have us believe, because this wasn’t done.
Really? But we already knew that Google was manipulating search results for words such as “Islam” and “Muslim.” We have known for quite some time. On July 26, 2017, Turkey’s state-run news outlet Anadolu Agency reported:
Google’s first page results for searches of terms such as “jihad”, “shariah” and “taqiyya” now return mostly reputable explanations of the Islamic concepts. Taqiyya, which describes the circumstances under which a Muslim can conceal their belief in the face of persecution, is the sole term to feature a questionable website on the first page of results.
“Reputable” according to whom? “Questionable” according to whom?
Google was bowing to pressure from Texas imam Omar Suleiman, who led an initiative to compel Google to skew its results. Apparently Google didn’t consider whether those who were demanding that search results be manipulated in a particular direction might have had an ulterior motive. Could it have been that those who were pressuring Google wished to conceal certain truths about Islam that they preferred non-Muslims not know?
“Queries about Islam and Muslims on the world’s largest search engine have been updated amid public pressure to tamp down alleged disinformation from hate groups,” Anadolu Agency reported. Google could have performed a bit of due diligence to determine if sources being tarred as “hate groups” actually deserved the label, and if the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the hard-Left smear propaganda organization the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), both of which are invoked in the Anadolu article, were really reliable and objective arbiters for defining “hate groups.” Google could have tried to determine whether or not the information it was suppressing was really inaccurate. Instead, Google swallowed uncritically everything Omar Suleiman and his allies said.
Despite his success, Suleiman still isn’t satisfied:
One leading activist in favor of Google modifying its results told Anadolu Agency he noticed the updated search results and thanked the company for its efforts but said “much still needs to be done.” He claimed that Google has a responsibility to “combat ‘hate-filled Islamophobia’ similar to how they work to suppress extremist propaganda from groups like Daesh and al-Qaeda.”
This should have made Google executives stop and think.
The Islamic State (Daesh) and al-Qaeda slaughter people gleefully and call openly for more mass murders. There is no corresponding “Islamophobic” terror organization. There have been over 30,000 lethal jihad attacks worldwide since 9/11, and no remotely corresponding wave of “Islamophobic” violence. CAIR and the SPLC claim in the Anadolu Agency article that supposedly “Islamophobic” rhetoric has led to a rise in hate crimes against Muslims, but this is not supported by a scintilla of evidence.
When Suleiman equated critical words about Islam with the direct exhortations to murder emanating from actual murderers, Google should have realized that Suleiman had an agenda and wasn’t being honest. Yet he tried to pose as an impartial arbiter: “Suleiman said Google should differentiate between ‘criticism of Islam and hate-filled Islamophobia’, emphasizing the religion should not be infringed upon.”
Suleiman is granting that acceptable criticism of Islam is different from “hate-filled Islamophobia.” But if that is so, then the religion can be “infringed upon” by this legitimate criticism, no? Or if the claim that Islam must not be “infringed upon” means that it cannot be criticized, why is that so of Islam but no other religion?
Suleiman says: “I don’t think Google has a responsibility to portray Muslims positively. I think Google has a responsibility to weed out fear-mongering and hate groups but I don’t want Google to silence critique of Islam, or critique of Muslims.”
The problem with this is that neither Suleiman, nor Hamas-linked CAIR, nor anyone else who has ever said that there was a distinction between legitimate criticism of Islam and “hate-filled Islamophobia” has ever identified anyone they think is a legitimate critic of Islam without being “Islamophobic.”
Through 18 books, thousands of articles, and over 60,000 blog posts at Jihad Watch, I have attempted to present a reasonable, documented, fair, and accurate criticism of Islam and explanation of the jihad doctrine. Nevertheless, I’ve been tarred as a purveyor of “hate-filled Islamophobia” by groups and individuals that have never given my work a fair hearing, and have read it only to search for “gotcha!” quotes they could wrench away from their obviously benign meaning in order to claim I was stating something hateful.
This doesn’t happen only to me. It happens to anyone and everyone who dares to utter a critical word about Islam or jihad, wherever they are on the political spectrum.
This experience, reinforced countless times over a decade and a half, makes me extremely skeptical when Omar Suleiman says that he doesn’t want Google to silence critique of Islam. If he could produce a critique of Islam that he approved of, my skepticism might lessen. But he won’t, and can’t.
It seems much more likely that he pressured Google to skew its results so as to deep-six criticism of Islam. Probably, knowing that he couldn’t reveal he was trying to bring Google into compliance with Sharia blasphemy laws forbidding criticism of Islam, he told them instead that he wasn’t against criticism of Islam as such, but only against “hate-filled Islamophobia.”
And they fell for it, making their present claims not to have skewed searches on Islam ring hollow.