Is it biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the USA?

[Monsterfurby]

In 1939, Poland was invaded by Christians.
In 1941 Pearl Harbor was attacked by Shinto-believers(Shintoists?)



... Yes its biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the USA.

No. Those two statements are absolutely true. There were Christians among the German soldiers invading Poland, and there possibly Shintoists amongst the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor.

It's the CONTEXT in which the statement is used which is wrong and bigoted, not the statement itself.

 

[Doug]

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?

"Muslims Attacked the USA" - Its not necessary bigotted as its, in the strictest lingist sense, accurate. But it is a very misleding statement that implies the word 'All', i.e. '(All) Muslims attacked the USA'. And frankly, I think its intentional that this 'Bill O'Reilly' says it that way as it keeps his bigottry under a veneer of civility.

In the same way, you could accurately say 'Christians attacked Iraq', but it would be equally misleding.

As for "Japanese Extremists", thats utter bullshit. The whole of Japan was subservantly joining in the war effect, and given the extremely low number of Japanese who choose surrender over death in the pacific campaign, I think we can safely assume that the minority who weren't whole-heartly in the war where the 'extremists' of their country.

As for Germany in WW2, its more a case of relatively small number of extremists, but everyone obeyed them.

Yes.

Muslims didn't declare war on America.

Japan and Germany did.

Completely different.

Exactly. The Allied nations where at war with the Axis nations. The key words being nations. The Muslim -religion- isn't what attacked America, it was a very small subset of them who, ironic, the USA funded the training for back in the Cold War when the USA was trying to keep the USSR out of Afghanistan (oh history, you joker you).

 

[Vrach]

Yes.

Muslims didn't declare war on America.

Japan and Germany did.

Completely different.

^This. Japan organised and executed an official military assault on America and declared a war. Same for Germany and Poland.

A number of Muslim extremists got on a plane, took it over and smashed it into several buildings. It's called a terrorist act and yes - there's a big difference. One of them being that it happens far more often and doesn't provoke a war against a country that the extremists happen to be born in.

 

[HotFezz8]

no, because muslims attacked america.

its not hard, besides, we are fighting muslim jihadists in afghanistan (and the americans are fighting them in iraq).

 

[Xan Holbrook]

Bill O'Reilly talked about entire nations who were at fault in World War II. Islam is not a nation, it's a religion. Plus, I've heard several friends of mine who are Islamic say 'Islam means Peace', a bit like most religions are - Christianity's Golden Rule and Buddhism's Four Noble Truths are other examples. Seeing as the vast majority of any politicised and religious institution have moderate tendencies nowadays, then extremists were at fault. These men do not represent Islam the same way the IRA do not represent Catholocism and the Westboro Baptist Church do not represent Protestantism.

 

[Porygon-2000]

this is the third time I'm rewriting this. I cannot word it right.
Yes, it is true. Technically. Its not nice, but its not entirely wrong either.

 

[Spinozaad]

I'm fairly certain that the 'Muslim extremists' see themselves as the only true Muslims. A No True Scotsman has never stopped anyone.

So no, I wouldn't say it's bigoted. Muslims attacked America. However, it would be bigoted to say that The Muslim attacked America.

There's a difference.

 

[Porygon-2000]

Japan organised and executed an official military assault on America and declared a war. Same for Germany and Poland.

A number of Muslim extremists got on a plane, took it over and smashed it into several buildings. It's called a terrorist act and yes - there's a big difference. One of them being that it happens far more often and doesn't provoke a war against a country that the extremists happen to be born in.

Also, just like to point out, Poland didnt go and attack the US. That was pretty much taken care of because of the Nazi-Soviet joint invasion, that happened back in 1939.

Modern history exam on wednesday, and THIS is my revision...

 

[Wiiiiiiilliam]

Shouldn't this be in religion and politics?

In my opinion no it isn't.

 

[Steppin Razor]

The terrorists who hijacked the planes were Muslims, so yes, Muslims attacked America. It's not a bigoted statement, it's factually correct. No amount of arguing will change the fact that it was a bunch of Islamic extremists that decided it would be a good idea to fly a couple planes into the Twin Towers. Had the planes been hijacked by Christians or Hindus, you could say the US had been attacked by Christians or Hindus instead.

 

[WittyInfidel]

Could you please add a poll so we can all click yes?

It was terrorist that attacked. When the Oklahoma City building was bombed, did we claim "oh, the Christians killed those people"?

Use you head, man.

 

[RobCoxxy]

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.

Edited your post to contain all that is needed.

 

[Kenko]

To say "Muslims" is very unspesific. But minus all the conspiracy theories of what happened it'd be more specific to say "Al Qaeda" attacked America. Your normal day average muslims likely just want to live their own lives and be left in peace.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

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.

I'm almost certain that's what happened at Pearl Harbour...

That's my point. The rest of my post goes on to state how there is no Muslim government, or standing army. I said that the two weren't comparable, that while it is okay to say that the Japanese attacked the US, the 'Muslims' didn't attack the US.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

That is just branding 9/11.
Yes, it's pretty racist because its like saying serbians are murderers to austrians, just because of what happened in WWI.

 

[A Pious Cultist]

Would it be bigotted to say that German Nazis are evil? After all there are definitely some German people who are probably still Nazis.

Yes, yes it would. Same for the OP.

 

[chickenlord]

unlike in world war 2 the Muslims as a whole did not attack us, Muslim is a whole religion... it was a small band of Alcada(or however you spell it) who attacked us, in world war 2 Japan and Germany were RULED by these terrorists...so as part of their entire army, they attacked us. If Muslim was a county and they sent their army to attack us then it would be the same. But they aren't and they didn't.

 

[teknoarcanist]

Yeah, when are we, as a country, going to return to the good-old fashioned racial values and speech patterns of the 1940's?

 

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

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.

Yeh...I dunno.

Being a citizen of a country(especially a democratic one)implies no belief, being a member of a religion does exactly the opposite. I'm not saying it's entirely fair to throw a blanket over an entire group of people, but I feel it's an important distinction to make. Holy books are collections of sometimes profound, often scary and entirely archaic political views that are supposedly adopted by their followers...I don't feel it's inappropriate to object to or be fearful of such things.

"Islam is at war with itself"...fair enough, it is. To dwell on that for too long is to ignore the fact that we still think that Abrahamic religion is still politically relevent...and that's really the problem.