Is it biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the USA?

[NeutralDrow]

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

Of course, given that the number of Muslims who <url=http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php>condemned the attacks <url=http://iir.internetactivist.org>vastly dwarfed the number who celebrated it, he has far less of a point than you think.

There's nothing "PC" about avoiding misleading statements.

 

[Mr Godfrey]

No, but it is ignorant. It's being too general; though the people that attacked the US were Muslim, they were a very small minority of the Muslim community. It'd be like saying all Americans are obese... We know that's a small minority of all American people-not all of them. If you're going to talk about the attack, you should inform yourself enough to know the specific sect that attacked rather than saying all Muslims as a collective "attacked America" (it's offensive to some Muslims).

 

[NeutralDrow]

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?

<url=http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100617/NEWS06/6170326/Murfreesboro-mosque-plan-ignites-backlash>Because a frightening amount of people don't make that distinction.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

Well, the men who attacked us were Muslims, and they were inspired by the Islamic faith. Are all muslims bad? I don't think so, but I do think that Islamic culture in general could be seen as less progressive than the West in many ways. In terms of gender rights and freedom of religious practices and thought, I think they're behind. (Personally, I think that any culture that revolves around religion will never be as developed as a secular one, but whatever).

At the same time, I could say that the men and women that are killing abortion doctors are Christian. I could also say that the inbred family of the year, the Phelps, are also Christian.

 

[lacktheknack]

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.

That doesn't work... It doesn't say anywhere in the New Testament Bible to attack those who aren't Christians (quite the opposite, in fact), actually, "literalists" would mostly sit around praying. I'm fairly sure a true "literalist" Muslim would end up doing something similar (although I haven't read the Qu'ran, I've yet to find the infamous "burn the infidels" passage).

 

[DudeistBelieve]

Biggoted? No. Certainly not. This was a Muslim Extremist attack on America. So saying that Muslims attacked america is true, these folk happen to be Muslim, and were attacking us for Muslim reasons.

HOWEVER~!

It is incredibly IGNORANT to NOT indentify these particular individuals as the EXTREMIST of their religion. Look were all a fair amount of racist and xenophobic, as a realistic human being I realize that. But in this day and age we should at least be open to the idea that the vast majority of people different then us do NOT want to kill us. So Bill made an error in words, I don't think it's a matter of being politically correct as it is just telling the truth.

He likened it to the Japanese attack on pearl harbor. The problem I have with that is that Japan, the COUNTRY, attacked america. And FYI, we were real dicks once that happened cause we sent people to concentration camps cause their eyes where different.

THIS ALL BEING SAID~!

I watch the view from time to time. I loathe Joy, but I positvely love Whoopie. Ms. Goldberg is a woman I could I marry, speaking strictly personality/mentally. It was INCREDIBLY unprofessional for them to walk off their show during an interview. O'Reily, though I disagree with him politically, is a class act for apologizing and attempting to clarify his statement.

Just one drunk leftist opinion, mind you.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

bill o'reilly is a dumb fuck...

first off he doesn't understand the difference between religions and locations (wtf is a japanese extremist?)

second, if you say muslims did 9/11 then christians did the holocaust and the crusades so honestly, who killed more people?

 

[TheRealCJ]

Oh yeah, because a saying Japan (a single political country) attacked the US is EXACTLY the same as saying Muslims (a worldwide, multi-political religion) attacked the US.

Saying "Muslims attacked the US" would be more comparable to saying "Asians attacked the US!" or "Europe attacked the US!"

 

[Godhead]

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.

Of course almost all of the extremists of a group get most of the media's light.

OT: No it's not racist as Muslims belong to the religion of Islam, so I'm pretty sure that doesn't qualify as a race. But it is a pretty douchey thing to say. (Also, Bill O' Reilly The fuck man?)

 

[Manicotti]

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?

<url=http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100617/NEWS06/6170326/Murfreesboro-mosque-plan-ignites-backlash>Because a frightening amount of people don't make that distinction.

That's all well and good, but we're still talking in the context of this thread, which is basically a vacuum. Pretty much everyone here has made, or at least recognized the usefulness of making that distinction. I'm at a loss as to why this thread is still even going. Go right ahead and slap some sense into those folks in Tennessee, but they're not here in this thread mangling the definition of the word "the."

 

[WolfThomas]

Also why are we acting like Muslim = Country. If Ben Reilly wanted to truly be correct (using his WW2 comparison) he'd be saying "Saudi Arabians attacked the USA". Because, correct me if I'm wrong, but all but one of the hijackers came from there.

 

[Canid117]

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?

We said that Germans or Japanese attacked us not Buddhists and Lutherans (Which as I recall were the dominant religions in Japan and Germany at the time respectively). So why not say we were attacked by Al Qaeda? Sure its hard to spell but who gives a fuck?

 

[NeutralDrow]

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?

<url=http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100617/NEWS06/6170326/Murfreesboro-mosque-plan-ignites-backlash>Because a frightening amount of people don't make that distinction.

That's all well and good, but we're still talking in the context of this thread, which is basically a vacuum.

Nothing's a vacuum. Talking just "in the context of this thread" is missing the point of talking about real life events entirely. Everyone's arguing from a real life perspective, and just speaking for myself, I'm arguing from the perspective that lack of specificity certainly can be the result of a bigoted point of view (especially by someone who compared reading the Qur'an to reading Mein Kampf), and enforce an existing and far-too-prevalent idiocy.

Pretty much everyone here has made, or at least recognized the usefulness of making that distinction. I'm at a loss as to why this thread is still even going. Go right ahead and slap some sense into those folks in Tennessee, but they're not here in this thread mangling the definition of the word "the."

I can only assume you're trying to say "we all agree on this thing here, why are we still talking about it?" It's the only interpretation I can think of that makes sense.

 

[Kekon3]

Yes.

Muslims didn't declare war on America.

Japan and Germany did.

Completely different.

Well the question isn't weither they declared war, its weither its "OK" to say they attacked us.

Which I suppose, probably (though we shouldn't kill them all for it). I mean since I'm currently reading this stuff up in my super advanced hyper turbo (go) history class, and that they have been attacking other religions (and dividing their own) since Ali died.

Its definitley true to say they attacked us for our beleifs but wither its right is up to you.

 

[Mr Scott]

Yes.

Muslims didn't declare war on America.

Japan and Germany did.

Completely different.

Respectfully disagreeing, the fact that the attacks on September 11 weren't declared is why it was terrorism. Additionally, the bombing of Pearl Harbor came before Japan's declaration of war on America. Which kinda' made it a terrorist attack, to me at least.

 

[ideitbawx]

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.

I find that argument ridiculous, as alcohol IS a drug. You can't argue to make all drugs legal, than shift all the problems associated with drugs to just one specific one.

And the whole segment shown is... misleading. That group is trying to make ALL drugs legal, and yet their representatives only use Weed as an example. I dare you to say a parent using heroin is a good parent.

Than again, Bill fails miserably for not pointing that out. That was a lose-lose argument.

at the same time, though, regardless of if all drugs become legal or not, no-one who doesn't want to do drugs is gonna suddenly go "holy shit i gotta try heroin now!!" once it becomes legalized, i don't see the rate of use changing very much. people have already made up their minds on whether they'll do it or not, you just need to be educated of the effects, physical, social, and psychological. everyone else will handle the rest.

 

[Worgen]

well it could also be argued that christian beliefs require them to bomb abortion clinics, really we dont know what the motivation of the bombers was, its more likely that it had to do with the perception of america as aiding enemies of whatever groups had decided to "brain wash" the ppl that did it (I use the term brainwash since its simpler then getting really deep into cult motivation), the whole 52 vigins is a mistranslation anyway, its really 52 olives or something, not much of a motivation so the motivation had to be something more

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.

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.

the Oklahoma city bombing had a similar goal, it was to start an uprising of militia groups and overthrow judges and police and such, needless to say it failed to do that

 

[DustyDrB]

Weren't they Muslims (I really don't remember)? Didn't they attack the US (This I do remember)?
So (if, as I think, the answer to that first question is yes), then a few Muslim guys attacked the US. I think the people who are saying it is racist to say Muslims attacked the US are seeing it as "All Muslims are against America" and not "A few Muslims hijacked plans and crashed them into unfortunate locations".

 

[Kekon3]

I don't know, I definitley want terrorism to stop and its kind of scary the reason that terrorism is around is becuase of our American ways (for the most part).

and since I'm not well educated enough to say exactly who did it I'd still say it was a group of people, THEY attacked america for whatever reason.

This thread was fun for me because I apparently forgot we were in a war still. huh.

 

[cavemano727]

Yes, the country of Germany and Japan attacked us so Germany and Japan attacked us. Iraq, Pakistan, and other muslim countries did not attack us, terrorists who happened to be Muslim attacked us.