I thought he was a white supremacist, definitely Islamophobe, who only cloaks his message when it might cost advertising dollars?
a white supremacist who also happens to be Jewish. He, of all people, knows exactly what happens when white supremacist hate is allowed to grow. And he doesn’t care who gets hurt as long as the money keeps rolling in.
also: fuck Barbara Kay.
white supremacy is the mainstream Canadian media viewpoint. It’s time we hold people responsible for their words and actions.
That guy has the right idea.
I don’t know the assailant’s name. I didn’t read his fucking manifesto and I didn’t watch that abomination of a video he made of himself killing scores of innocent people.
Unfuck that killer, and anyone who sympathizes with him instead of his many victims.
Abdul Aziz. That’s a name which I could connect with the incident.
The problems of medial exploitation and “heroism” in general put aside, the guy reportedly is self-aware.
I won’t last link the original source I got the name from, since it, again, features the name of the terrorists. Long story short, at the second attacked mosque, Mr. Aziz got out of the prayer room and confronted, even attacked the terrorists, shattering his windshield and making him piss off.
Another name to remember.
Thank you for that .
Now WTF is this? Chelsea Clinton is the villain here? Seriously?
It’s hard to explain my feelings about that. They are incredibly raw, but Daoud Nabi did something I’ve thought a lot about before, and it has deep moral meaning to me personally in a way that affects some questions I’ve long had, and never had answers to.
Him and the rest will be buried in the clothes they died in, barring extenuating circumstances. A fitting funeral for martyrs.
Well, if you read the article, she wasn’t accused of being THEE villain here, but rather of fomenting anti-Islamic sentiment by jumping on the anti-Ilhan Omar bandwagon. As the person who confronted her Tweeted afterward,
“I can’t believe this has to be said, but i didn’t tell chelsea clinton she was the one who put a gun to muslims’ heads. I said, & continue to say, that by jumping on the right-wing bandwagon & vilifying ihan omar, she fed into the EXACT discourse we were at the vigil to protest,” she continued in a separate tweet, before adding that a “number of people” thanked her for addressing Clinton.
“All of this stems from the anger and sadness i felt sitting in a space that was supposed to center me and my fellow muslims in mourning and instead became a space in which non-muslims preached abt love while turning around and supporting violent campaigns against muslims globally,” she continued.
I’m not surprised that Trump’s son and other conservatives came to Clinton’s defense. I hope she’s having a good think about just how it is that they’re suddenly on her side.
I struggle with this argument. Leaving aside whether Rep. Omar’s remarks were actually anti-Semitic (FTR I don’t believe they were) are we in a place where opposing anti-Semitism promotes Islamophobia? Or criticizing a person who is Islamic (rightly or wrongly) is equivalent to same? Chelsea comes from a position of extreme privilege and could be accused of punching down, this I understand, but this just feels wrong to me. And to be clear, I am seriously not being an asshole here. I do not understand the logic. Having said that, if the Trump family is on your side, you have a very strong probability of having chosen poorly. So, yeah, if i sound confused it is because I am.
Arabs and Muslims talking about this that I’ve seen so far are not on Chelsea Clinton’s side. Translation:
Trump’s son defends Chelsea, Hillary’s daughter, because a Muslim woman chastised her for her attacks on Ilhan Omar. I could write a book on the filthy things he and his father have said about their family. But, as long as there’s a reason to attack a Muslim, then Chelsea is his oppressed and dear friend.
Lots more like that where this came from. I realize this is shocking to people who think of them as relative doves (probably because the unquenchable Republican thirst for blood skews this particular Overton window) but globally the Clintons aren’t necessarily held in the same nostalgia and esteem with which American Democrats regard them.
At the end of the day though, the relatively powerful Clinton was mildly told off. Weird that it gets the teller-off death threats. I’m somewhat unsympathetic that a public and political Clinton might have had their feelings hurt. This isn’t Rush Limbaugh making fun of a kid anymore, she’s older than I am. But I detect a lingering sense that she’s still some bystander babe (in the literal sense), as opposed to someone all grown up with some actual political roles. The kinds of roles that make appearances at vigils not entirely apolitical acts, regardless of how Clinton may have personally felt about it.
Except, apparently, by some Albanians…
Cynically weaponising disingenuous claims of antisemitism in order to silence critique of AIPAC ≠ “opposing anti-Semitism”.
Yeah, and GWB, too. If I recall
I hope that like me, you find the above clarifications helpful. I’ll add that we can’t set aside “whether Rep. Omar’s remarks were actually anti-Semitic.” They weren’t, and I have no doubt that those who spoke up to Clinton not only know that, but also admire Omar (as I do) for saying what she said.
That American political context is crucial for understanding what was at best tone deaf about Clinton showing up at the vigil. This is a good explanation of that context:
“Is Ilhan Omar Wrong…About Anything?”
By Andrew Levine
This topic is temporarily closed for at least 4 hours due to a large number of community flags.
This topic was automatically opened after 8 hours.
Has Chelsea Clinton ever had or run for any kind of public office? I know she campaigned for her mother twice, but I was under the impression her main job was being a board member on the Clinton Foundation.
That said, I can’t really get behind the idea of her not being all grown up. She’s an adult responsible fully responsible for her actions.
What Omar said was not anti-Semitic. Though I’m inclined to believe Omar when she says she wasn’t aware of the potentially anti-Semitic connotations, I feel her original comment was taken out of context. She wasn’t saying Jews or even Zionists are greedy. She was highlighting the fact that politicians who support Zionism are backed by AIPAC, which is objectively true. Lobbying is all about the benjamins, and AIPAC is no exception. At worst she wasn’t clear probably because, as the article @milliefink linked to, not a lot of people are aware of AIPAC and might have thought she was questioning the sincerity of politicians who support a Jewish ethno-state in Isreal.
All that said, drawing a direct line from Clinton’s tweet criticizing Omar’s tweet to the Christchurch shootings seems like a reach.
In other news, Meghan McCain also got into a Twitter spat with Omar. It was even uglier.