Is it biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the USA?

[Dango]

No, unless you're trying to insult Muslims.

 

[Sgt AssHead]

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

Well, Its not my argument, I personally do not agree with Bill.

 

[lightningmagurn]

While a bad comparison, there have been multiple Muslim extremist attacks on America and her allies in the last sever al decades.

 

[burningdragoon]

I'm sure this is actually besides the point (and it could be a misquote)

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."

The US was attacked by Muslims. We just weren't attacked by the Muslims. Those two phrase have a noticeable difference to me. However "That's who attacked us" kind of implies it was the Muslims, which is very much wrong and I guess bigoted is the word you could use.

 

[FinalHeart95]

Technically, 9/11 was caused by Muslims. If you take the sentence at face value, it's fine.

The problem comes in the implied meaning. It seems implied that ALL muslims were involved. In fact, I believe O'Reilly said something like this to argue against the ground zero mosque.

 

[Tdc2182]

Yes, it is wrong and stupid to claim that Muslims attacked the US.

It would be like saying Christians bombed a mostly black school when it was the KKK.

The Muslim Community who is actually extremist is a very small fraction of the religion.

 

[Tsaba]

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

Well, Its not my argument, I personally do not agree with Bill.

I said nothing about your argument I just said your not helping yourself out, I'm sure there are several if not many sources you could use instead of Bill O'Reilley for asking this question. Bill O'Reilley does not have the best track record for talking points then again neither does anyone else who has a daily commentary.

 

[2fish]

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.

Yes it is based on their tactics but note I said "one of the reasons", we don't tend to call other countries terrorists we have other words for them. See dictatorship, totalitarianism, Nazi, ect. Sorry for the confusion.

It is funny that when the terrorists are on our side we call the rebels, freedom fighters or guerrilla fighters...

And yes with Bill I never know what he means, I suppose I am not the right brand of crazy to understand him.

 

[GBlair88]

Well technically it's true because people who happened to be Muslim attacked the US. Though it would be better to say Muslim extremists were involved in the attacks rather than the Muslim community in general.

 

[dreadedcandiru99]

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

Well, it's not racist, what with "Muslim" not technically being a race, but yeah, it's pretty bigoted. All Muslims Everywhere did not attack the United States, any more than All Christians Everywhere bomb abortion clinics or All Jews Everywhere run over Palestinian babies with bulldozers.

As Bill O'Reilley said on his own show

Okay, I think I found the problem.

 

[hem dazon 90]

Yes, very

 

[Pingieking]

No, but it's a gross simplification. The terrorists were technically Muslim. They were Wahhabi, which is kind of like the Muslim version of the Westboro Baptist Church, except that these people actually control a country. A very rich one supported by the US.
However, to say that Muslim attacked the US drags a billion innocent bystanders into the discussion. The only similarity of those other billion to the attackers is that they've all read the same book at some point during their life.

Basically, to say that Muslim attacked the USA is comparable to saying that Caucasians conducted a huge genocide on the Jews. It's technically correct (Nazi Germany was mostly Caucasian), but it's basically wrong because 99% of the people that was mentioned in the statement had nothing to do with it.

 

[REAPER5594]

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.

thank you for this excelent point. No one seems to get that fact. and I never did like Bill. Or Glen. Shepard is the only guy on there who doesn't give me a headache

 

[FFHAuthor]

I'm seeing a bit of odd logic here. We weren't attacked by the Islamic Government...because there hasn't been a unified Islamic Caliph since 1924. We were attacked by the individuals who want to RESTORE the Islamic Caliph government and bring back a unified Islamic government. Who were supported and encouraged by the key religous leaders of the Islamic faith, which, since Islam demands a Theocracy, those leaders ARE their government.

They've stated as much repeatedly, their faith operates on that level, their society operates on that level. There is no secularization in their society, there is no sepeartion of Church and State. The Church IS the State. The Imams ARE the Government. The extremests represent the intentions of the 'government' of Islam. I'm sorry folks, but viewing Islam through the lense of your own predjudice and political correctness and trying to say 'there is no Islamic government' is innacurate to the exteme. Making arguments trying to compare Christianity or America to Islam or trying to equate the Second World War to the ongoing struggle with Islam is...simplistic.

Read the Polically Incorrect Guide: 'Islam and the Crusades' it'll open your eyes up if you've got an open mind.


And I suppose I'll throw this out there, No, Islam didn't declare war on America. Islam declared war on Civilzation, and every non-Muslim in the world when Muhamed declared that we were to either convert, serve, or die over 1500 years ago.

 

[Sgt AssHead]

I said nothing about your argument I just said your not helping yourself out, I'm sure there are several if not many sources you could use instead of Bill O'Reilley for asking this question. Bill O'Reilley does not have the best track record for talking points then again neither does anyone else who has a daily commentary.

Okay, I agree with that. The only reason I used Bill O'Rielley was because it was the most recent.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

I'm still trying to understand how Bill O'Reilly has a fucking show to begin with. I mean he's the equivalent to British tabloids, except he's taking up a timeslot...

That's so fucking silly to say such a thing on television, because he knows how people will take such a thing, regardless of how you sugar coat it.

Yes, you you were attacked by people of islamic faith, but the statement is broken because of the comparison to the Germans and the Japanese as if Muslims are a national identity.

What a smug prick. Every time I look at his show I just want to hurt him so badly.

 

[KezzieZ]

Well it's already been said but a government's military ordering an attack and a terrorist group proclaiming religious reasons for an attack are two different things entirely so the analogy used in that quote is a bit broken.

Also, I'm not going to lie and say that I watch O'Reilly's show or anything but from the little bit of him that I've seen he seems biased to say the least. I wouldn't give the guy a ton of merit, but that's my own personal opinion.

 

[Paksenarrion]

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.

Yes it is based on their tactics but note I said "one of the reasons", we don't tend to call other countries terrorists we have other words for them. See dictatorship, totalitarianism, Nazi, ect. Sorry for the confusion.

It is funny that when the terrorists are on our side we call the rebels, freedom fighters or guerrilla fighters...

And yes with Bill I never know what he means, I suppose I am not the right brand of crazy to understand him.

Wait...so, Batman is a terrorist from the League of Villainy's perspective? This just occurred to me while reading this. I wonder what Batman's religion is? Vengeance? Vigilantism?

"Batman, what's your religion?"

"I'm a Vigilantist."

 

[Worgen]

yes, unless you also going to say chistians attacked the US because of the Oklahoma city bombing