Why does Ilhan Omar wear a head scarf? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14999832
Rich wrote:No I didn't think it was likely, but IIhan Omar does go on gay pride parades, hence demonstrating that she is a complete fraud. Anyone adhering to any notion of traditional religious sexual modesty whether Islamic Christian, Buddhist or anything else would not go near a Gay Pride parade. Covering her hair is not because of sexual modesty, but is intended to spit in the face of ordinary Americans.


Wrong. She like other Muslims are in the ''Dar-ul-Harb'', not the ''Dar-ul-Islam'', and she can make alliances with anyone to destroy the realms of the non-muslim infidels-including other infidels. As long as she's doing all this for the good of extending Islam, she's fine in Allah's eyes.
#14999834
annatar1914 wrote:Wrong. She like other Muslims are in the ''Dar-ul-Harb'', not the ''Dar-ul-Islam'', and she can make alliances with anyone to destroy the realms of the non-muslim infidels-including other infidels. As long as she's doing all this for the good of extending Islam, she's fine in Allah's eyes.


Which is also why she is able to talk about intersectionalism.

From Ilhan Omar's webpage:

The LGBTQIA+ community’s struggle did not end with the legalization of same sex marriage. People in the queer community are disproportionately affected by the same issues we all experience—lack of access to housing, education, and healthcare; violence; workplace discrimination; among many others. I will fight in Congress to uplift the voices of the LGBTQIA+ community, and especially when that intersects with other marginalized identities.


... Imagine considering yourself a Muslim willing to wear the headscarves of a conservative, not necessarily part of some Albanian or Turkish woman's Islam that has been all about the Qanon law & wine bibbing for more than a few centuries, and then talking about your commitments to the LGBTQIA community.

It's not really sensible.

There's really only four possible explanations:

- Omar is a dufus (and a dufus alone).
- Omar is crassly ticking all the boxes for support from Leftists (and this alone).
- Omar is supporting every coalition that stands against traditional Western identity and culture and is only concerned with providing support to her own people and others in her coalition that want to take over the West or at least bleed it dry.
- Omar is actually a liberal first, and not really much of a Muslim.
#14999835
Verv wrote:Which is also why she is able to talk about intersectionalism.

From Ilhan Omar's webpage:



... Imagine considering yourself a Muslim willing to wear the headscarves of a conservative, not necessarily part of some Albanian or Turkish woman's Islam that has been all about the Qanon law & wine bibbing for more than a few centuries, and then talking about your commitments to the LGBTQIA community.

It's not really sensible.

There's really only four possible explanations:

- Omar is a dufus (and a dufus alone).
- Omar is crassly ticking all the boxes for support from Leftists (and this alone).
- Omar is supporting every coalition that stands against traditional Western identity and culture and is only concerned with providing support to her own people and others in her coalition that want to take over the West or at least bleed it dry.
- Omar is actually a liberal first, and not really much of a Muslim.


I'm counting on her motives being with your third option;

"Omar is supporting every coalition that stands against traditional Western identity and culture and is only concerned with providing support to her own people and others in her coalition that want to take over the West or at least bleed it dry."


Otherwise I don't think she would have received the necessary means for her to succeed as she has so far in her political career.
#14999836
annatar1914 wrote:Wrong. She like other Muslims are in the ''Dar-ul-Harb'', not the ''Dar-ul-Islam'', and she can make alliances with anyone to destroy the realms of the non-muslim infidels-including other infidels. As long as she's doing all this for the good of extending Islam, she's fine in Allah's eyes.

Most people don't understand that Muslims believe they are permitted to lie in their Satanic religion if it is meant to advance the cause of Islam.
#14999838
annatar1914 wrote:
Otherwise I don't think she would have received the necessary means for her to succeed as she has so far in her political career.


Here's an important anecdote kind of about this...

We are good friends with a conservative Hindu couple. So conservative, in fact, that I have heard them passionately defend the caste system as an isntitution that should continue indefinitely. Yet, they were both ready to vote for Hillary Clinton, an egalitarian and distinctly pro-LGBTQ candidate.

I asked them how they, as conservative Hindus, can support lefties that advance a very progressive doctrine on equality and sexuality, and I asked... Is this because you don't really view yourselves as Americans in any conventional sense, and do not see how what's happening to the core of American society and culture doesn't matter to you, because India is your society, and the American society is separate?

And they said "yes," and kind of laughed abotu it, a bit embarrassed.

They do not see the LGBTQ thing as something for Hindus, but at something for white & black Americans who are... y'know, actual Americans. It doesn't concern them.

They feel about American drug addiction problems and the sexual revolution the same way that an American would feel about the massive prostitution & drug crisis in the Philippines...

"Well, I guess that's kind of sad, kind of a big thing... IDK, how's trade look with them? How much would it cost for me to buy a beach house there? What are hotel prices liek? How's the food..?"

Perhaps Ilhan Omar and the Somalis in her base feel exactly like this...

Omar has to say a bunch of dumb, extra stuff to address the concerns of the Americans, but we should just keep behaving as we usually do.
#14999850
Liberals see conservatism as something they must destroy. The Democrats have become a party of liberals and they believe they must obstruct anything that promotes capitalism, which they claim is evil because some people can become rich.

When Bernie Sanders bragged about how he became rich by writing a book and selling it, he was asked isn't that the definition of capitalism, he said, "No." He could not admit that there was anything good that could come from capitalism or conservatism. However, now that he is a member of the 1%, he laughs at the idea that he should now pay the higher tax rates that he has been calling for the 1% to pay in his previous run for president. Seems hypocritical to me.
#14999973
Hindsite wrote:Liberals see conservatism as something they must destroy. The Democrats have become a party of liberals and they believe they must obstruct anything that promotes capitalism, which they claim is evil because some people can become rich.

When Bernie Sanders bragged about how he became rich by writing a book and selling it, he was asked isn't that the definition of capitalism, he said, "No." He could not admit that there was anything good that could come from capitalism or conservatism. However, now that he is a member of the 1%, he laughs at the idea that he should now pay the higher tax rates that he has been calling for the 1% to pay in his previous run for president. Seems hypocritical to me.


The real conclusion to be drawn from this is maybe it was stupid to call Sanders a ''Socialist'' to begin with, since he never was one and denied it always. What Sanders has always been is a Liberal Democrat economically similar to FDR's ''New Deal'' and Johnson's ''Great Society'' and ''War on Poverty'' programs. ''welfarism''.

That's not Socialism. Again, Socialism is the public control of the means of production, the ''Capital'', in a society. That's what it is and nothing else.
#14999991
Bernie Sanders says he is a Democratic Socialist


The 2 Big Reasons Why Bernie Sanders Is Talking Socialism


Bernie Sanders Is running for president as a socialist


Speaking at Brooklyn College Bernie Sanders announced that he is running for president in 2020 on a very socialist platform.

[/b]Why "Democratic" Socialism Doesn't Work[/b]
#14999994
Hindsite wrote:Bernie Sanders says he is a Democratic Socialist


The 2 Big Reasons Why Bernie Sanders Is Talking Socialism


Bernie Sanders Is running for president as a socialist


Speaking at Brooklyn College Bernie Sanders announced that he is running for president in 2020 on a very socialist platform.


Sanders must be a good conman, because without really saying it,( unless he's talking about expropriating the means of the economic production of goods and services in society), then he's not talking Socialism nor is he a Socialist.

How stupid does a person have to be to think this man is a Socialist? Or has ''Socialism'' degenerated as a word with meaning, like ''Fascism'', to be things that it really isn't?
#14999998
annatar1914 wrote:Sanders must be a good conman, because without really saying it,( unless he's talking about expropriating the means of the economic production of goods and services in society), then he's not talking Socialism nor is he a Socialist.

How stupid does a person have to be to think this man is a Socialist? Or has ''Socialism'' degenerated as a word with meaning, like ''Fascism'', to be things that it really isn't?

You're going to hear all sorts of stupid shit about "socialism" before this is over. The Republican hate propaganda machine seems to be picking up on this big time. People won't want to work. Your money and possessions will be taken away. Just look above and you can see Hindsite has Bernie's image with a communist symbol behind it. I wonder what he would say to a picture of Trump in a Nazi outfit.

We already have mild socialism in America. To my mind socialism simply is a system of helping neighbors who need a little help. Social Security and Medicare are good examples.

Advocates of predatory capitalism, I notice, are ok with socialism for corporations and billionaires as manifested via tax laws, anti union laws and a hundred ways to rig the deck in favor of the 1%.

It's the age old story of capital vs labor.
#15000000
@jimjam , you said to me that you thought that;

''To my mind socialism simply is a system of helping neighbors who need a little help.''


If that is ''Socialism'', than I would still be a Socialist/Communist, and I think most decent people would be too. I'm not decent, but I would think so anyway.

I believe that Socialism as defined throughout history (as the common ownership of the means of economic production, held in public trust) is what it is called simply because helping our neighbors and loving them, and them us, requires us ultimately to treat all things as being in common. At least private property but not personal property like toothbrushes and eyeglasses ;) . This was the life of the Early Church, and a part of the Monastic life from that time to today.

I gave up on believing that this can be forced by human beings, that it is something that can be universally applied despite fallen and sinful human nature. We are mainly simply too selfish in this life, many of us.
#15000004
So, this was the 15 millionth post on PoFo. And it's good, and from a good poster.

annatar1914 wrote:@jimjam , you said to me that you thought that;

If that is ''Socialism'', than I would still be a Socialist/Communist, and I think most decent people would be too. I'm not decent, but I would think so anyway.

I believe that Socialism as defined throughout history (as the common ownership of the means of economic production, held in public trust) is what it is called simply because helping our neighbors and loving them, and them us, requires us ultimately to treat all things as being in common. At least private property but not personal property like toothbrushes and eyeglasses ;) . This was the life of the Early Church, and a part of the Monastic life from that time to today.

I gave up on believing that this can be forced by human beings, that it is something that can be universally applied despite fallen and sinful human nature. We are mainly simply too selfish in this life, many of us.


... I also agree... and the thing with the monastics is that they have a vow and a goal that is extremely narrow in scope, but also very difficult.

There's no concentration on property to begin with -- it's completely secondary.

The success of the model literally depends on the disinterest of the people involved plus their absolute & total commitment toward the most virtuous life. These monasteries are one of the only places where you can probably acquire a bit more than others and it'd be a mark against you for any sort of advancement within the society, literally and figuratively.
#15000018
annatar1914 wrote:Sanders must be a good conman, because without really saying it,( unless he's talking about expropriating the means of the economic production of goods and services in society), then he's not talking Socialism nor is he a Socialist.

How stupid does a person have to be to think this man is a Socialist? Or has ''Socialism'' degenerated as a word with meaning, like ''Fascism'', to be things that it really isn't?

We shall see how stupid the liberal Democrats are in the 2020 election if they vote for this conman.
#15000080
Verv wrote:Omar is actually a liberal first, and not really much of a Muslim.

Yes I think this is right, although she's definitely a left Liberal. Islam gives licence to Muslims to lie to Infidels, but that means things like pretending to support free speech, pretending to support democracy or dressing western when you're planning a so called terrorist attack in the West. It doesn't mean pretending to like Gay Pride parades.

It seems like Omar is in to adultery and fornication. From what I can make out it seems she has used beta cuck liberal men, who have been happy to collude in covering up her distinctly un-Islamic behaviour. As I say part of her intention in wearing a head scarf is to spit in the face of the country that has given her refuge, given her rights, given her the opportunity for a political career, that she would never have had if she'd stayed in the Muslim shit hole where she was born. But she also wants to have some sort of cover amongst real Muslims.
#15000094
Rich wrote:I'm posting this here because this is not an American particular issue, lots of these fake-Muslims, or identity-Muslims play this game across the world. In fact I'd be happy if this evolved into a wider discussion on the relation of sexual morality, dress codes/ nudity restrictions and gay rights.

My answer is that she's a lying, hate, filled hypocrite. That she does this as a cultural Marxist insult to western culture. It has nothing to do with her personal comfort adhering to traditional Muslim morals and culture. So I note on the Gay pride march she has bare forearms, elbows and ankles and the top three or four buttons of her blouse are undone. In many traditional Muslim cultures this would still be considered dressing like a whore.

But the more important point is what is she doing on Gay pride march? Traditional Muslims codes of dress modesty are totally incompatible with Gay rights. The dress codes apply to mixed gender settings. Muslim dress codes in single sex settings, such as bath houses are completely different and may even involve complete nudity. But what ever, no Muslim culture requires women to wear head scarfs in a single gender setting. The whole purpose of Conservative dress codes whether Muslim, Christian or anyone else is to stop illicit sexual activity, to make sure the women remains faithful to her owner / husband. Allowing gay sex makes a total mockery of that.
Your whole argument is an " ad hominem tu quoque " fallacy .
Her seemingly inconsistent conduct has no relevant bearing on whether or not her point of view is correct .
#15000095
Verv wrote:So, this was the 15 millionth post on PoFo. And it's good, and from a good poster.



... I also agree... and the thing with the monastics is that they have a vow and a goal that is extremely narrow in scope, but also very difficult.

There's no concentration on property to begin with -- it's completely secondary.

The success of the model literally depends on the disinterest of the people involved plus their absolute & total commitment toward the most virtuous life. These monasteries are one of the only places where you can probably acquire a bit more than others and it'd be a mark against you for any sort of advancement within the society, literally and figuratively.


Thanks Verv, I appreciate it, and agree with you on general principle that this monastic system is the only way that this disinterestedness can even work on a scale beyond the personal or familial perhaps, and even there it is difficult. And, it is all secondary to the love of God within the human heart, an effect of His Power working in and through us.
#15000099
@annatar1914, Socialism is not about "helping others." It is not about "giving to one another" or "loving neighbors." These are religious values that were used to control people.

Slave owners "helped" their slaves. Slave owners "gave things" to their slaves, such as food, shelter, and crime protection. And some slave owners "loved their slaves" depending on what definition of love you're using. The definition that you're using defines your political ideology. In capitalism, wealthy CEO's "give" to the poor. Rich family relatives give money to their poor relatives. And in some capitalist systems, there are enterprises that help poor people beat the system via working and loaning them money. But, none of this is socialism.

Welfare is not socialism either (although it is closer because it helps free people from their families and it is less domestic). Why is none of this shit socialism? Because it doesn't go against the family institution nor does it go against fake thoughts (religion, extreme optimism, romanticism).

In socialism, no one "helps" each other. People only Use each other. When your mom gave birth to you, did she "help" you get out of her womb? Or did you only use her, and that she taught you that she "helped" you so that you could be thankful, so that she can Control You?

Is love something that everyone should achieve freely via free love? Or, is love a social construct created to control the people? Isn't love a cover up that is used to motivate people to have sex? Shouldn't sex be free from love?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 10
EU-BREXIT

@B0ycey Also which is worse for the NHS? Br[…]

Trump's Dumb Economics

Not one Trump supporter has attempted to counter […]

The Evolution Fraud

Thanks for doing the homework for me. So you are […]

No one cares because it doesn't fit people's polit[…]