Is it biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the USA?

[Sgt AssHead]

I ask this because I saw a local news story on this concept.

As Bill O'Reilley said on his own show
"I submit to you and everybody watching tonight, that after 10 years we got it. We know the difference between peace-abiding Muslims and people who make war under the banner of Islam. But here's the question: Did we say in World War II, we were attacked by Japanese extremists or German extremists? Did we do that? No we said we were attacked by the Japanese. We were attacked by Muslims. That's who attacked us."

I know that not all Muslims are terrorists, and I also know that not all terrorists are Muslim, but the fact is that Muslim terrorists did attack America on 9/11.

So, is it racist or biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the United States?

 

[The Lunatic]

Yes.

Muslims didn't declare war on America.

Japan and Germany did.

Completely different.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

It's not racist, but it's wrong.

Muslims didn't attack the US. To say that the Japanese attacked the US is to say that the government of Japan at the time marshalled the Army of Japan and attacked American soil.

The analogy doesn't cross over. It would be like saying that Christians attacked ComiCon because the Westboro Baptist Church showed up to protest. That's the difference. Being a Muslim, extemist or not, isn't a country with a unifief government and standing army.

To make it more personal, I could claim that 'America attacks Muslims' because people like Bill O'Reilly have made attacks against them.

The difference between a country and a religion, Bill O'Reilly should learn it.

 

[Kortney]

As Bill O'Reilley said on his own show
"I submit to you and everybody watching tonight, that after 10 years we got it. We know the difference between peace-abiding Muslims and people who make war under the banner of Islam. But here's the question: Did we say in World War II, we were attacked by Japanese extremists or German extremists? Did we do that? No we said we were attacked by the Japanese. We were attacked by Muslims. That's who attacked us."

First of all, Bill O'Reilly is a fucking idiot.

Secondly, in World War 2 you weren't attacked by Japanese or German extremist groups, you were in war with the entire population of Japan and Germany.. Those who couldn't fight were producing weapons for those who could. The government of both countries had declared war on the "free world.". You were fighting Germany. You were fighting Japan. So it's fine to say you were attacked by the Japanese.

In 9/11 you were attacked by an extremist group of Islamic people. A group which do not reflect the values or thoughts of the Islamic population.

Please. Think. Use your head.

 

[Stoic raptor]

yes it is.

It maybe be technically correct, but it sounds like as though they did it for islam, or that all muslims attack.
It gives us a bad image.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Just because we said the Japanese attacked us during World War II doesn't make it any more right. Besides, does he even know what we did to Japanese people when that happened? I mean, pretty much every single one living in America was taken away because of their race, just like the Nazis did with the Jews and we were fighting them... and also, we were fighting Nazis, not Germans in general.

It is bigoted, though true. See, I look at it like this. Whenever the Westboro Baptist Church or whoever does something incredibly stupid, everyone looks at them and says "those Christians are idiots." While it's technically true that the WBC are both idiots and Christians, when someone says something like that... it's like they're talking about all Christians. And some people believe that all Christians are idiots just as some people believe all Muslims are terrorists.

 

[FalloutJack]

Thing is, we were attacked by the Japanese because the government of Japan said "Go attack." and their soldiers did so. Germans attacked wherever because they were ordered to as soldiers. So, the Germans attacked. Here? The terrorists are not the government. We didn't get a declaration of war. If you don't have the mandate of the masses or the backing of the government, you are you and your rabble only. Unless Osama is a government agent with secret orders to use his group to attack people, this is not a war with a people.

 

[Darth Pope]

The number of yeses is surprising.

 

[Cliff_m85]

Not necessarily. I'd say, and here comes the controversy, that Literalist Muslims attacked America on 9/11. Apologeticist Muslims did not, but they water down their religion.

Now I know, I know. Not PC. But I'll stand by it and also assert that the Westboro Baptist Church = Literalist Christians and those Christians that fight against them are apologeticist Christians with a watered down religion as well.

So on and so on with every other religion.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Bigot=a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

So by definition no. By common use yes.

 

[2fish]

Japanese and German is a country based assumption, Muslim is a religious based assumption. I would say there is a difference as a country is at least in theory a unified organization. A religion or a group of people cannot be linked in such a way because they are fractured. It would be like saying Christians picked soldier?s funerals rather than saying the westboro church picketed soldier?s funerals.

Also the countries can formally declare war; terrorist organizations do not adhere to this rule as they are not a country (one of the reasons why we call them terrorists).

So maybe bigoted, but mostly stupid and fear mongering.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

It was the Japanese army that attacked us at Pearl Harbor. Last I checked, the 9/11 conspirators weren't working for any government who's official religion is Islam.

 

[DefunctTheory]

It sounds, from the context, that ol'Bill was trying to make another point: That when someone says 'Muslims' attacked the US, that most people recognize that they don't mean ALL Muslims. It's merely a shortening of a term (Because some people, like me, have lazy tongues).

Than again, its Bill. Who the fuck knows.

Also the countries can formally declare war; terrorist organizations do not adhere to this rule as they are not a country (one of the reasons why we call them terrorists).

No. The term terrorist is applied due to the tactics of a person/organization. It has little to do with the structure of the said group. Terrorist are so named because they don't really kill people to fight there battles: they inspire fear (terror) to make a point/accomplish their goals. Any deaths caused by such actions are of little consequence beyond what it does to a population.

 

[Macgyvercas]

Musilms did not attack the US. Terrorists did. Muslims who follow the Koran are generally very peaceful people. But like anything, religion taken to the extreme leads to all sorts of problems.

Also:

Yes.

Muslims didn't declare war on America.

Japan and Germany did.

Completely different.

This. Seeing as the terrorists groups are not affiliated with a government, declaring war would be difficult, if not impossible.

 

[Blue_vision]

Depends on the context. In this, I'd just say it's faulty logic, so no it's just an idiot being stupid. Islam didn't declare war against the US, a couple of Muslim pricks did.

 

[TheTurtleMan]

From a very technical standpoint yes, the particular group of people that attacked America were Muslim, but that would be like saying that catholics launched an attack on a city because there was a serial killer who happened to be catholic. O'Reilly is a biggoting douch and 9/11 was in no way a secret plan developed by all the Muslim people to "kill the infadels."

 

[Snake Plissken]

No, it's a fact. A shitload of Muslims boarded planes and attacked the US. Not all Muslims attacked the US, but Muslims attacked the US. This is a non-issue. I don't know how it could be construed a "wrong" if it is the truth.

It doesn't make Bill O-Reilly any less of a fuck-head, though.

 

[badgersprite]

Well, for one thing, that doesn't distinguish between the numerous different sects and subsections of Islam. That's like saying, "Christians picket soldier's funeral" everytime the Westboro Baptist Church stages one of their insane protests.

Besides which, it's a myth to think that this terrorist action was religiously motivated. It wasn't. That may be one way of justifying it, but, of course, like most any war, it's about things like land, sovereignty, imperialism, history with the US military, marginalisation and political machinations more than it is about religion. By associating the terrorist groups with their religion, it misrepresents and trivialises the complex causes and background to the war we're in now.

 

[Tsaba]

First off:
Yes, we are at war with a group of Islam that practice their religion as a form of government in a Fascist manner.
Second off:
No, we are not at war with the people who practice Islam as a religion and only desire to raise their families in peace and live there lives.
Third off:
They don't help there argument when they do things such as this:

Spoiler

Last:
Why are you quoting Bill O'Reilley? Your not helping yourself out.