Rep. Ilhan Omar Retweets False Photo of Palestinian Children Killed by Israeli Forces

Such controversies will continue. The point is only that those advocates of censorship today could well be the targets tomorrow. Rather than silence those who are accused of such false images or claims, the solution is to protect the right of everyone to speak for themselves and to challenge others in these important national debates.

We also recently discussed how figures like Leon Panetta and even the Washington Post continue to voice or embrace debunked claims.

I would oppose efforts to censor Reps. Omar and Ocasio-Cortez despite my disagreement with their views. It is possible that we can, as Americans, unite behind our common article of faith in free speech and oppose the calls for censorship that have been mindlessly echoed by many, including Rep. Omar.


216 thoughts on “Rep. Ilhan Omar Retweets False Photo of Palestinian Children Killed by Israeli Forces”

  1. “The following describes the law of armed conflict (LOAC), also known as international humanitarian law, that applies to the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. We identify where the law is well settled and clear, and where it is less so.
    “We do not apply the law to any alleged facts. Indeed, whether any conduct violates the law would generally require a fact-driven, case-by-case analysis.
    “We hope this guidance will assist policymakers, diplomats, analysts, reporters, scholars, and the public at large. …”

  2. Jan Egeland (Former UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs, now Secretary General of the Norwegian Refugee Council):

    “Moral clarity means we must condemn the horrific Hamas violence, and call for the immediate release of hostages. But moral clarity must also mean a halt to this Israeli offensive from which ordinary Gazans have no escape, before it claims the lives of even more innocent children”

    “The Israeli order for civilians to move from northern Gaza to the south is impossible and illegal. Let us not talk about it as if it was a humanitarian evacuation. It amounts to forcible transfers and a war crime, I told CNN and @biannagolodryga.”

    In responding to Hamas’s war crimes, Israel must avoid committing its own war crimes.

    1. I would expect no less of a despicable statement from someone in her position. The UN is a cabal of anti-Semitic, anti-American thugs. She can take her “halt to the offensive” recommendation and shove it up her a$$.

        1. Are you a biologist?

          The Left like you are rightly scorned for being so bereft of intellectual capabilities.

          1. Actually, my intellectual capabilities tell me that in Norway, “Jan” is a man’s name, like “John” is in English. You can also tell by his photo that he’s a man. But don’t let that get in the way of your puerile insults.

        2. The U.S. and Israel are part of the UN.


          And Egelund is a man, not a woman

          My bad. Just used to using backwards pronouns I guess (ha!)

  3. The Left’s moral equivalency fallacy is an attempt to disarm the good and the innocent — Israel. That fallacy is often indirect, hiding behind the skirt of pity.

    We are told, for instance, that Israel should be condemned for “cutting off water and electricity to millions of civilians, about half of them children.”

    When your terrorist government invades another country, you can expect to lose your utilities. Just as the Germans and Japanese did during WWII.

    Here is the suicide the pity-mongers are demanding of Israel: Continue supplying water and electricity to the butchers who invaded you. Leave them with water and electricity, as Hamas continues killing your citizens. In other words, Israel: Slit your own throats.

    1. Ben Stein says:

      Of course we expected that when Hamas struck, they would strike children, women, and old people harder than any other groups. Of course, we expected that they would take their cruelty to a level we could only have nightmares about. We knew that they would take pain and agony to levels we could only feel sick about. This is what we have come to expect from a stone age personality group, raised on the firm belief that they were justified in any level of cruelty the sickest human mind could imagine.

      But did we expect that when these evil people struck, their mind altering cruelty would be praised by tens of millions on the streets of almost every world capital. I did not and now that I see it and hear the shouts, I realize that the human beast has literally no depths to which he will not sink. Nazism is easy to understand today. And what about when he gets nuclear weapons and ICBMs.

      1. “But did we expect that when these evil people struck, their mind altering cruelty would be praised by tens of millions on the streets of almost every world capital.”

        That barbaric reaction should have been expected. It’s baked into their evil ideology. And its identical to the reactions of similar, past atrocities, e.g., 9/11.

        1. We saw hints of it in the reaction to 9/11, especially among American leftists who sought to excuse or justify the attack. But this is taken to a new level. With 9/11 we didn’t have large demonstrations in world capitals (such as London) supporting the terrorists and intimidation of Jews. Now we do.

            1. No, Trump LIED that “I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.”

              There were not thousands of people cheering in Jersey City.

            2. iowan2 – it appears Trump was correct in one way and incorrect in another. Small pockets – dozens, but probably not hundreds – of Muslims did celebrate in Jersey City, including on rooftops. But if he said “thousands” then that was an exaggeration, which would be consistent with the way he often talks.


              I’ve found that when I listen to him there is a kernel of truth in many things he says, and that in this he is willing to say truths that other politicians don’t – which is probably why he’s both wildly popular and deeply hated. But he often weakens his point by exaggerating. As illustrated by the above anonymous comment, his detractors naturally focus on the exaggeration but often don’t admit the kernel of truth. In this, they are often successful in sidelining the discussion into the minors while not discussing the majors.

              1. Why do you say “if he said “thousands,”” as if that’s in question? Your own link quotes him as saying “thousands and thousands.”

                What he said was a lie.

                1. What I said was true. Your comment is a prime example of what I was talking about: nit-picking the small points while failing to engage the important points. To you it appears more important that Trump exaggerated than that there were dozens of Muslims in Jersey City cheering on the mass slaughter of Americans.

                  1. It’s not an exaggeration. If there were 10 people, then saying “20 people” would be an exaggeration. Saying “thousands and thousands” is a lie. It’s knowingly false and off by orders of magnitude. That you insist on excusing his lie as nothing but an exaggeration is a problem. You regularly call others out on false claims that contain an element of truth. Why is it OK for you to do that, but not me?

                    The next time I see you call someone out on a false claim that contains an element of truth, should I tell you to stop objecting because it’s simply an exaggeration and you’re just nit-picking?


                    1. Yup. If I’m nit-picking while ignoring the more important points, call me out. You say Trump lie, I say he exaggerated. You’re correct. I’m also correct but more precise. You object to me being more precise because you subjectively interpret that as an excuse, and then the discussion of whether it was an excuse, or whether exaggerations are a sub-classification of lies, becomes the entire matter under dispute. I believe being more precise was material to the point I was making (that Trump is loved and hated for addressing sensitive topics other won’t). It’s a waste everyone’s time and derails the substantive discussion. I don’t pretend to know your subjective motivation, but when someone does that generally it seems to me an attempt to divert from an uncomfortable debate by refocusing everyone’s attention on immaterial details, thus losing the main thread.

                    2. “You object to me being more precise because you subjectively interpret that as an excuse”

                      No, actually, I don’t see your claim as “more precise.” I also think that Trump is a pathological liar and that that’s quite substantive as an issue in its own right. And your own article doesn’t say that any of what they identified was broadcast on TV, so Trump was also lying about having “watched” it (his word). As far as I know, there was no video of anyone in the US celebrating the terrorism. Your article doesn’t mention any video.

                      ” I believe being more precise was material to the point I was making (that Trump is loved and hated for addressing sensitive topics other won’t).”

                      I previously didn’t understand that as your point. Thanks for clarifying now that that’s your point. I (unsurprisingly) disagree that that’s why Trump is hated, and I doubt it’s true that there are any topics that Trump addresses and other people won’t. I’m open to being convinced, though, if you want to give some examples?

                      Turning to the report in your article that “there were dozens of Muslims in Jersey City cheering on the mass slaughter of Americans,” maybe they’re right, but it’s also possible that some people interpreted other celebrations on 9/11 (e.g., weddings and birthday parties that were planned before the terrorist attacks took place) as celebrations of the terrorist acts. It’s hard to know, because they didn’t identify (much less interview) any of the people who were said to have been celebrating, so those people weren’t asked, and they also don’t seem to have asked the people they did interview “what convinced you that they were celebrating the terrorism?” But again, it’s certainly possible that a few dozen people publicly celebrated the terrorist attacks.

                      “I don’t pretend to know your subjective motivation, but when someone does that generally it seems to me an attempt to divert from an uncomfortable debate by refocusing everyone’s attention on immaterial details, thus losing the main thread.”

                      And that may sometimes be the case. But be open to the possibility that people have different views about what’s material.


        2. Why are you a Genocide-Denier? Haven’t you ever heard of The Deir Yassin massacre that took place on April 9, 1948. Zionists dumped the bodies down the village well. The first of hundreds of atrocities to follow. How would you feel if somebody broke into your house, kicked you out on the street? This is what Palesinians experience every day of the year since 1948. Haven’t you ever read the history of the massacres. This is the only thing I’ve every agreed with AOC: Where is your humanity?

          Why don’t you try doing a little research and get the other side of the story: Try watching a video by Miko Peled author of “The General’s Son,” or the confessions of former IDF soldiers at, or Norman Finkelstein. Finally, the world is waking up, but the average American is clueless and utterly unwilling to question the narrative they are spoonfed from the corporate media. Haven’t you heard about the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty? Of course not, because Americans are willingfully ignorant and brainwashed, with a mind totally closed to anything that challenges their assumptions. Why am I wasting my breath?

          1. “Why are you a Genocide-Denier? Haven’t you ever heard of The Deir Yassin massacre that took place on April 9, 1948. ”

            Deir Yassin was a war zone. There are conflicting reports regarding the battle, but there is no doubt that it was a war zone where civilians also resided. The Irgun is said to have warned civilians of the attack by loudspeaker, though some others, ADMITTING THE IRGUN WAS TRYING TO WARN CIVILIANS, say the truck got caught in a ditch.

            There were escape corridors through which many civilians escaped. 70 civilians were turned over to the British. That alone proves this attack was military and not against civilians.

            The Arabs pretended to surrender and then started shooting. Civilians probably were caught in that crossfire. There was no intentional murder of any civilians or enemy that legitimately surrendered.

            The episode, as reported by Anonymous, is garbage coming from the usual set of people who are proven wrong almost every time they speak.

            According to one of the histories of the time, “the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as women. The Jews searched the women as well. One of the Arabs pretending to be a woman, knowing he was caught, shot the Jewish commander. Others say Arab women participated in the fighting.

            The entire episode was from Arab propagandists. The usual names come up all the time.

    2. Hamas had an instruction manual for atrocities. They were instructed to not only kill, but torture first. It is detailed, and so the amount of torture was calibrated to the amount of time the terrorist had.

      The manual described ways to create chaos and intimidation, how to coerce and blindfold captives, and ordered the terrorists to use electric shocks or to execute persons that may pose a threat or distract the terrorists from their goals.

      The document also explicitly instructed the terrorists to livestream the execution of captives over the internet and to use them as human shields in clashes with the Israeli forces.

      1. Some context is needed here. Israel needs to choke off the monster threatening to wipe it off the map. That includes such measures as depriving that monster of electricity. Israel wants civilians to evacuate along the safe routes. Hamas is the one preventing that evacuation through roadblocks and force.

        1. Drive them into the Med Sea, Egypt, Lebanon, which ever is easier. Pro-Palestinians / Hamas have made it clear: it’s either kill or be killed. Israel needs to respond like their existence depended on it. Let the stronger prevail just like all current countries did when establishing their borders

          Palestinians are Hamas and vice versa

        2. Do you agree or disagree that Israel must respond without committing war crimes?

          The moral answer is clear: Israel cannot commit war crimes in response to Hamas’s terrorism/war crimes.

          1. I agree Israel shouldn’t commit war crimes, but I also note that often what one person calls a military operation necessary for national security, others call a war crime.

            But even putting that aside, since you seem so self-unaware, let me inform you how you come across. I doubt you’ll take this to heart, but that’s no excuse for me not to try.

            Suppose someone came into your house, tortured, raped and killed your wife and all your kids. The same person has declared his intent through words and actions to do the same to all your parents, siblings, and all your extended family. So . . . the love of your life, gone. Your children to whom you’ve devoted a lifetime, gone. Your relatives, in great danger.

            Now suppose a third party – someone who has no connection to you or the perpetrator – came into your living room and told you: yeah yeah your wife and kids have been raped, tortured, and killed, and your extended family is in great danger – but look here, the important point, the thing we really need to concentrate on, is that when you deal with the perpetrator in an attempt to preserve the lives of your parents, siblings, and other relatives, that you do not commit a crime. That’s how you come across. Callous, one-sided, and treating lightly the great harm that has been done to the Jews by the atrocities committed by Hamas.

            Now, go ahead and have the last word, and show me that you put little weight on what I’ve said. I won’t be disappointed because it’s what I expect.

            1. I’ve already said several times that Hamas are terrorists and condemned them. I’m not going to do that in every single comment in order to point out to Sam that cutting off water, electricity, etc. en masse is a war crime and to say that Israel must respond without committing war crimes.

              “often what one person calls a military operation necessary for national security, others call a war crime.”

              There are international agreements about what constitutes war crimes, like the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, to which Israel is a signatory. For example, one of the articles of the Geneva Conventions is that “Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.” Cutting off water to millions, most of whom are civilians, many of whom are children, is a collective penalty and a war crime.

              I condemn the terrorists Hamas, what they’ve done is horrendous, but I also condemn Israel’s war crimes in response. My heart does not go out to Hamas, but it does go out to the families of the innocent civilians on both sides of this conflict.


  4. Thank You for an absolutely SPOT ON declaration, Prof. Turley. I believe many are just splitting hairs over how babies were killed.. The fact is that there were indeed babies and all ages of folks killed in a brutal, inhumane, savage, obliterating, and totally unprovoked massive attack on Israel and Israel has every right to fight back to defend and protect itself.

  5. “Yesterday the Israeli Prime Minister’s office said that it had confirmed Hamas beheaded babies & children while we were live on the air. The Israeli government now says today it CANNOT confirm babies were beheaded. I needed to be more careful with my words and I am sorry.”

    A willing wartime propagandist…

    Oh look at that ! The Ghost of Kiev just dive bombed a mig across the bay !

  6. Yep it was all one big fckn LIE, just like the baby and incubators

    No 40 babies heads chopped off – as usual only the really stupid people fell for it, and dummy biden had to admit he lied too.

    Sarah Sidner, the fake news reporter “The words I used were the PM’s office must have proof if they are confirming this. Then President Biden confirmed seeing it. And then backed tracked.”

    Congrats fellas, you all fell for it save one or maybe two with me.

  7. Ret. police officer Michael Fanone, who was injured on Jan. 6 as he defended the Capitol: “Jim Jordan is an insurrectionist who has no place being second in line to the presidency… This is a very dark time for our democracy and should serve as a wake up.”

    “Vazquez is one of six former OSU wrestlers who told CNN in recent interviews that they were present when [Jim] Jordan heard or responded to sexual misconduct complaints about team doctor Richard Strauss. … Jordan has emphatically denied that he knew anything about Strauss’ abuse during his own years working at OSU, between 1987 and 1995. … Multiple former OSU athletes told CNN they found Jordan’s denials puzzling, because they say they distinctly remember him responding to complaints about Strauss. One former wrestler, Dan Ritchie, said he remembers a teammate complained about Strauss and that Jordan said, “If he ever tried that with me I’d snap his neck like a stick of dry balsa wood.” … Another former wrestler, Mike Flusche, told CNN that he also remembers Jordan responding to a complaint about Strauss by saying he would break the doctor’s neck if he ever tried something similar on him. …”

    Jordan has been one of the least effective legislators in the House in terms of getting legislation taken up.

    But we’re close to getting him as Speaker. Disgusting.

    1. Wow what a great rebuttal. Maybe that unnamed hater should be wiped off the face of the earth.
      Bad speech can be corrected by good speech, or good counterpoints.

      you’re an anti-semite and your posts are turds is not corrective good speech, it’s more crap from a hater or a failure

      1. Noope, some people are just Jew-haters who go around leaving stinky turds all over the place. Their turds don’t deserve to be dignified with a “rebuttal“

        1. That is your rebuttal, and it is a turd, and I dignify it because I know you don’t have a response.
          When lefties come in here they get responded to.
          When the usual crew has no answer, they pretend they never saw it or complain like you just did.
          I’m always nice about everything because I usually include pertinent facts that spear the liars heart, it bleeds in convicted shame from the facts presented, the Bleeding Heart of Jesus heals them, then I make sure to insult them so they can bail out and cry and whine to their eyes opened as well peers.

          Don’t worry I’ve got it covered, as soon as I find the liar.

Leave a Reply