Is it biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the USA?

[Moromillas]

Yes, yes it is.

What about crazy Christians that blow up (or try to) abortion clinics? Are we now going to say "We were attacked by Christians"? More rhetorical nonsense from Bill.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

but the fact is that Muslim terrorists did attack America on 9/11.

False.

Terrorists attacked the American Government because the American Governement invaded their homeland.

If you declare them as terrorists, then that is the only label you can prove for them.

Otherwise you could say America was attacked by brown people, or people in nice shoes...

O'Reilly is a bigot, and is paid very well to be bigoted. Careful not to become one yourself.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

No, not bigoted but both stupid and ignorant. Just because they were Muslims that attacked doesn't mean that people can claim that the Muslim faith declared war on the Western world. They were Muslim extremists that attacked, they represent a small portion of people who follow Islam.

Claiming that it's the same as WW2 is also wrong. Nazi Germany was at war with the rest of Europe and Japan was at war with America. You can't call them extremists in the same way you can call terrorists extremists. These people were following orders from the people who declared war, they weren't all extremists but people who had a job to do and were just going to do it. Terrorists aren't people with jobs to do, they are people who have chosen to fight for their cause through thick or thin, become martyrs and revolutionaries, they aren't soldiers.

 

[Danzaivar]

Muslim isn't a country?

 

[n19h7m4r3]

Yes.

Muslims didn't declare war on America.

Japan and Germany did.

Completely different.

Yes it is wrong.

The entire nation or religion didn't attack.
Just some extremist group.

 

[Shycte]

I try to see it as extermism rather than Islam.

 

[Airsoftslayer93]

Yes, japanese and germans are a country, a race, islam is a religion, we dont say 'christians invaded iraq'

 

[Monsterfurby]

Logically, it is a valid statement, just as much as "Christians killed civilians in Iraq" or, more pointedly "Someone wearing jeans and black socks is posting in this thread".

The point it: the fact stated has little or no relevance to the action committed. Yes, the terrorists were radical muslims and part of what is called Al Qaida. However, terrorism does not require Islam to work. There are nationalist terrorists, christian terrorists, hell, there even have been radical pacifists who qualify.

The way Mr. O'Reilly used the sentence is not in a logical sense, though, but in a political, spin-doctored sense. He omits the context and just throws a technically true, but essentially unconnected statement out there. Or, to return to the imaginary quotes above, essentially claims that civilians die in Iraq because some American soldiers are Christian or these forums only get posted in by people who wear jeans and black socks. Just one of many ways to bend an argument.

 

[electric discordian]

Do we have any proof they were actually Islamic extremists? Has anyone asked any of the people who flew the planes into the tower how often they went to the mosque, oh no wait we can't. They were Saudi nationals according to their passports so why didn't America start a war with Saudi Arabia instead of "Islam?"

In the Koran no where does it say "thout shalt fly an airliner into a big building in America!"

I personally think they stopped being Muslims the moment they pulled knives and started the Hijack, its easy to pick any religious text and subvert it's text to prove violence. But by doing so you are throwing away all the other basic tenets of that faith.

You cannot pick and choose if you believe in a faith with the supposed kind of dedication it takes to fly a plane into a building then you would know you shouldn't!

I think we should start a war on heretics as that what they were, so them first then the Westborough Baptist church next.

So yes it leads to bigotry and hatred against perfectly innocent people, nationalism is on the rise due to the "Brown threat" and in the UK our armed police are shooting Brazilians on the off chance their hand luggage is going to explode.

It would be like at the height of the I.R.A shooting anyone with ginger hair and a love of whimsical poetry!

 

[Yopaz]

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.

Agreed. Though some mention jihad (inaccurately translated to holy war) this was not jihad by their definition. Saying Muslims are to blame is insulting since it doesn't matter. They were terrorists that acted on ideological beliefs not their religion since their religion doesn't approve of what they did.

 

[Cypher10110]

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?

Context is as important as the specific words you use, they both contribute to the meaning of what your saying.

It's like saying "no offence to you personally, but I hate Americans" if you're an American you're probably still going to take offence (unless you see the meaning in the context), so just be aware of who you're talking to and how your going to come across. Not just your intent, but the result of that intent.

This is a fundamental feature of not just language but all communication.

 

[Dege84]

Oh come on... this is Vietnam all over again only now it's not only about money, it's about money and oil which seem to be the same thing actually. I mean "democracy". With Vietnam it was the Communist threat. The new song is USA - There's not enough democracy in the World and everybody gets to sing along. And Japan... Japan was forced to take action because of the ultra-aggressive foreign policy the US forced on them so let's not point fingers at everyone else but them.

All this is starting to turn against them apparently (well deserved) since after the start of the economic crisis Chinese corporations managed to buy more than 51% auctions in more than half of the large US owned corporations. So... It's not looking good for them at all.

In conclusion, it's not racist or bigotted to say muslims attacked the US, it's just plain wrong and every country except the US and possibly the UK knows that (or should know).

 

[smithy_2045]

It is not inaccurate to state that Muslims attacked the US. However, there are certain implications that come with such a comment that are inaccurate.

 

[Kajin]

We were attacked by a group of people under Islam, so it is okay to say we were attacked by Muslims because it is the truth. That being said, making the assumption that all Muslims are out to get us is a dick move.

 

[Reaper195]

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...

 

[DazBurger]

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.