Technically, Muslims did attack America...by which I mean that people who religiously associate with Islam attacked America. Muslims as a whole did not, and it's insane to think that every Muslim is just waiting to put on that suicide vest.
Is it biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the USA?
- Thread starter Sgt AssHead
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Japanese extremists or German extremists?
"We were attacked by Muslims. That's who attacked us."
So when a Brazilian tries to mug me I should in fact submit to the police that:
I was attacked on the street by Brazil the other day, they tried to steal my wallet.
Hmm makes alot more sense...
But seriously.
1,570,000,000 muslims in the world. Al Qaeda <10000.
How many racist and bigoted people are in the USA in comparison? How many murderers in comparison?
There is no country of Muslim. Its not a nationality. Saying we were attacked by Muslims is like saying we were attacked by people with noses. Or hair. It has no accurate denotative purpose , it is a misnomer and only fosters ill-will. So yes, yes it is bigoted in every conceivable way and news media should behave more responsibly with language. Then I remember we're talking about fox, and I regret spending any time on this thread.
"We were attacked by Muslims. That's who attacked us."
So when a Brazilian tries to mug me I should in fact submit to the police that:
I was attacked on the street by Brazil the other day, they tried to steal my wallet.
Hmm makes alot more sense...
But seriously.
1,570,000,000 muslims in the world. Al Qaeda <10000.
How many racist and bigoted people are in the USA in comparison? How many murderers in comparison?
There is no country of Muslim. Its not a nationality. Saying we were attacked by Muslims is like saying we were attacked by people with noses. Or hair. It has no accurate denotative purpose , it is a misnomer and only fosters ill-will. So yes, yes it is bigoted in every conceivable way and news media should behave more responsibly with language. Then I remember we're talking about fox, and I regret spending any time on this thread.
The intention was to make a symbolic point about the weakness of the US, and provoke the US into engaging in a war on a religious narrative, which supposedly would have caused the Muslim world to join Al Qaeda and rise against the "crusading" West.Worgen said:
What actually happened was effectively the entire Muslim world (not to mention everyone else) taking the side of the US and condemning the attack, and that support not actually wavering all that much even when the then-administration made some freudian slips about a black-and-white war between them and "evil" (and that "crusade" faux pas). Then the US bombed the shit out of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, forced them into hiding, and essentially destroying their central command structure. That's the thing...the 9/11 attacks? They were pretty much a colossal failure for Al Qaeda.
Until the War in Iraq, of course, but that's another issue altogether.
Yes, we were attacked by Muslims. Not ALL Muslims attacked us, but the people who attacked us were still Muslims.
This is what we like to call common sense.
This is what we like to call common sense.
The people who attacked the US were Muslims, and a very extreme kind at that. Muslims as a whole, however, did not attack the US.
In that case, I'm for watering down religion; getting along takes precedence over theological purity.Cliff_m85 said:
Germans and Japanese is different then Muslim
If there was a Muslimia, and Muslims were residents of Muslimia, then yeah, that would make sense.
TERRORISTS attacked us. Muslim terrorists in fact.
but to just say "Muslims attacked us" and say that it's ok because in world war 2 "japanese" and "germans" attacked us, that's just silly.
I don't even personally care, but you keep stomping on muslims in general for the actions of a small group of them, then that's just silly.
If there was a Muslimia, and Muslims were residents of Muslimia, then yeah, that would make sense.
TERRORISTS attacked us. Muslim terrorists in fact.
but to just say "Muslims attacked us" and say that it's ok because in world war 2 "japanese" and "germans" attacked us, that's just silly.
I don't even personally care, but you keep stomping on muslims in general for the actions of a small group of them, then that's just silly.
It's not entirely wrong to say we were attacked by Muslims. Yes, they were extremists, but they weren't Hindi, Christian, Jewish, Daoist, Buddhist, Happyologist, or any other religion.
It's not entirely right to simply say Muslims attacked, either. They were an extreme arm of the Islamic faith.
Interesting that in The View segment O'Reilley said simply 'Muslims' because he had given the audience a sense of respect and hoped they understood he meant 'extremist Muslims', and was doing that to save time. Much like we say 'Christians in the Crusades' when it was really a Corrupt Catholic Church. We just abridge it to save time.
It's not entirely right to simply say Muslims attacked, either. They were an extreme arm of the Islamic faith.
Interesting that in The View segment O'Reilley said simply 'Muslims' because he had given the audience a sense of respect and hoped they understood he meant 'extremist Muslims', and was doing that to save time. Much like we say 'Christians in the Crusades' when it was really a Corrupt Catholic Church. We just abridge it to save time.
I normally don't agree with Bill O'Reilly on anything, but he's got a point. Have we become so politically correct that we can't even state the obvious facts? Yes, not all Muslims are actively violent terrorists, but when 9/11 occurred, lots of Muslims around the world cheered and celebrated the fact that innocent people were killed. What's disturbing is lots of Muslims don't really act as terrorists, but do support the terrorists.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_sndgs03.html
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_sndgs03.html
Interesting of you to bring that up. My university chose that as the book for this year's Freshman Reading Program. To answer your question, I haven't, because it sounds bad. The writer was supposed to come to our school to give a speech as a tradition, but I heard he moved back to Pakistan, so he never showed up.
Yes. (As in agreeing. Not messing with semantics here.) I am pleasantly surprised at the number of people who think that too! 
Edit: I can probably safely say that this person you talk about is an disillusioned fanatic that has a less open/clear view over life than many persons many years his junior. But I do not know the person completely so refrain from backing this statement up completely.
Edit: I can probably safely say that this person you talk about is an disillusioned fanatic that has a less open/clear view over life than many persons many years his junior. But I do not know the person completely so refrain from backing this statement up completely.
The thread title is too vague and easy to take out of context. The answer is 'Yes' when you mean to say ALL Muslims, but it's 'No' when being technical: we were attacked by a group of particular Muslims, so it wouldn't be bigoted. However, in the context of Bill O'Reilly (or any Fox-based blowhard, for that matter), you can assume it's 'yes.' Bill O'Reilly is a big blubbering vagina. [http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly]
I didn't much care for it, either. (Reading that year was made up, though. Got to read Black Hawk Down!)arcofspira said:
Basically, the main character is a Mary Sue of the author. Said author has a free ride at Princeton, a hot girlfriend, and a high-paying job at a successful firm in New York City where his boss is grooming him to take over. This is after he grew up in Pakistan.
So he's living the American Dream, and he's on a buisness trip in the Phillipines. So, his flight's being delayed... because 9/11. His response?
HE SUPPORTS THE TERRORISTS. Because America is a bully to Muslims or something. It's not quite clear, he's not being abused or anything.
So, yes, you don't even have to be abused by America to support them. Kinda makes you think.
Everyone here is missing the point. Bill O'Reilly personally knows the difference between radical Muslims and regular Muslims. However, radical or not, many of the 9/11 victims' families associate Islam with 9/11 and that's why they find it offensive to put the mosque up. O'Reilly was expressing the views of the 9/11 families, but failed to describe the situation properly; instead phrasing it in a way that could suggest all Muslims were responsible for the attack.
its no different than saying that we were attacked by middle eastern men. The 911 terrorists were muslim (even if they dont represent the entire muslim commucommunity) Ipso facto we were attacked by muslims. I dont even see why this was such a big deal, personally i think all the view is, is an hour (or however long the show is) of washed up old tv personalities trying to prove who is the most liberal. One other thing I want to point out is how quickly mainstream media seeks to identify domestic terrorists with groups. If some pro-life extremist blows up an abortion clinic, its all over the news that a pro life person is to blame, I think that this whole thing shows just how over the top PC this country has gotten
We were attacked by Muslims. Period. Not "the" Muslims in the same way we were attacked by "the Nazis" or "the Vietnamese," just a group of terrorists who came and attacked America in the name of Islam. Hence, they were Muslims (or at least something close enough), and there's no reason not to identify them as such even if only for simplicity's sake.
Most of this thread really needs to stop flattering itself and pretending that everyone else is incapable of differentiating a few individuals from the culture/belief system from where they came. We all KNOW that every religion has its black sheep whether it created them deliberately or not, so what the hell is the point in arguing that identifying a couple terrorists by their religious beliefs is somehow offensive to the billion or so people that are related only by vague association?
Most of this thread really needs to stop flattering itself and pretending that everyone else is incapable of differentiating a few individuals from the culture/belief system from where they came. We all KNOW that every religion has its black sheep whether it created them deliberately or not, so what the hell is the point in arguing that identifying a couple terrorists by their religious beliefs is somehow offensive to the billion or so people that are related only by vague association?
I don't think its really about political correctness. I hate political correctness and this screams bigotry to me. If this were someone without O'Reilly's track record then I could give them the benefit of the doubt. But with him it is very common to hear him imply things he can't say openly like this. Juxtaposing two ideas without directly saying they are related.arcofspira said:
For the record if anything I am biased AGAINST Islam. Since before 9/11, I have not liked the religion. I'm not a huge fan of religions in general, but based specifically on its content I think it is my least favourite. I don't like it and I even think it would be beneficial for it to be watered down or less common in the world (though I feel the same way about others as well).
The difference is about being open about what you are trying to say. If you are against Islam then use rational arguments to express this, don't try to trick people into hating it.