Is it biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the USA?

[Lord Beautiful]

No, it's not bigoted. They were Muslims, and they attacked the U.S. Ergo, Muslims attacked the U.S.

The only sort of bigotry comes from the assumptions made of that statement.

 

[bassdrum]

Technically, you're right: it was a Muslim group who attacked the United States. That said, labeling them as such is only going to propagate the bad blood between the USA and Islamic cultures (you know, people seem to be generally unhappy when you call them terrorists).

Therefore, in my opinion, it is indeed a bigoted thing to say. It's stereotyping an entire cultural group based on the actions of a handful of extremists.

 

[Fridge]

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?

Yes it is. It might be accurate in the purist sense but its still wrong factually and anyone with even the smallest sense of logic will tell you that.

Using the example given about the Japanese, during WWII the Japanese attacked the USA as a nation, it wasn't a extremist faction, it was the Japanese nations military force. Now take 9/11, a extremist religious faction that is not supported by its government (although the group commiting the attack didn't have any particular country to take responsibilty). Yes this extremist faction was Muslim based but thats it.

Saying Muslims attacked the USA is like saying the Catholics attacked the UK, inaccurate and insulting.

 

[meowchef]

They were all Muslims that attacked America... I don't have any idea if they all shared the same nationality though. I say it is safe to say that Muslims attacked America.

 

[NeutralDrow]

It's a supremely misleading way of saying it, which makes it quite probable that it's a bigoted statement. I guess you could technically give someone the benefit of the doubt and say they're just making a mistake, though.

If it weren't Bill O'Reilly, of course.

 

[Bon_Clay]

They were all Muslims that attacked America... I don't have any idea if they all shared the same nationality though. I say it is safe to say that Muslims attacked America.

They were mostly from Saudi Arabia, with a couple from Egypt, UAE, and Lebanon. Interestingly enough none from either Afghanistan or Iraq.

Yes you can say Muslims attacked American. But you can also say humans attacked American. People wearing shoes attacked America. People with teeth attacked America.

If you want to say it is BECAUSE they are Muslim that they attacked, either have the fucking balls to say that or don't bring up factoids about them.

 

[JoeThree]

When did "Muslim" become it's own nation. Saying "terrorists" or even "extremists" is fine, but a broad term like "Muslim" is just ignorant. It's like if I said "Christains firebomb abortion clinics".

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Bill O'Reilly took a decent argument and completely fumbled it. This is a "yes and no" question, and as with so many other things, it all depends on context.

Muslims (a small group of people attesting to follow Islam) attacked the US.

Muslims (the entirety of those who follow Islam) did not attack the US.

As utterly politically-correct (and technically incorrect, as far as the political scale is concerned) as "Islamofascists" sounds, it's probably a better way to describe the first group.

The devil is always in the details!

 

[Kurt Horsting]

Al Qaeda attacked the US on September 11th. They happen to be Muslim. Logically correct, but its very ignorant (and stupid, bigoted, inflammatory, etc...) to say that Islam is at war with america.

 

[AgDr_ODST]

no its not...if the people who attacked us were Hindu we'd be saying Hindus attacked...so not at all biggoted in my opinion

 

[Worgen]

Wasn't the motivation based on Muslim belief? Obviously, not every Muslim hates America, but it's not bigoted to acknowledge that the extremists who attacked us were Muslim.

no it was motivated by standard guerrilla tactics, there is no more of a basis for it in islam then all the shit that christians and jews do and all the holy books give ways that would justify this sort of thing and have in the past, and keep in mind that the fed building bombing in Oklahoma was done by a chistian, and so was the plane that was flown into the IRS building down here

Guerilla tactics isn't motivation; It's a type of tactic. Even though I'm unsure about whether religion was the motivation, I'm not just blindly making an assumption that their religion was their motivation just because they happen to be Muslim. I think I remember hearing that the Muslim extremists believe that it is their religious responsibility to punish America for its non-Muslim values.

Also, whether the belief was the motivation or not, my point was to answer the topic question about whether it's bigoted to say that Muslims attacked the USA. It is no more bigoted to acknowledge that there are Muslims who attacked us as it is to say that a Christian bombed a building in Oklahoma.

Clearly not every Muslim wants us dead, because not every Muslim interprets the religion in the same way, and clearly not every Christian wants to kill people, but there has been a history of Christians who interpreted the religion in a way that motivated them to kill, such as during the Crusades.

Nothing in the Muslim faith justifies what they did. They were sick, terrible men who killed innocent people and tried to justify it with religion.

I'm not saying the Muslim faith justifies their actions. I'm saying that the extremists who attacked believe that their religion requires them to do so.

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

 

[NeutralDrow]

The Taliban attacked the US on September 11th. They happen to be Muslim. Logically correct, but its very ignorant (and stupid, bigoted, inflammatory, etc...) to say that Islam is at war with america.

...I don't know what I should think about the fact that you mixed up Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The farthest the Taliban has ever traveled outside of Afghanistan is the other side of the Pakistani border. Al Qaeda has a few decentralized bases in a few countries in the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa, and small, scattered individual and group support elsewhere. They're one of the very, very few Muslim groups to engage in terrorism in the West, whereas the Taliban literally doesn't give two shits about anything not directly related to Afghanistan.

Probably just an unintentional mistake, I know, but just making sure.

 

[Bon_Clay]

snip

Actually if you look at the history of the situation, the common religion was more of a tactic to organize and motivate people. The most accurate answer is they attacked because of America's foreign policy towards middle eastern countries. America had military troops in Saudi Arabia, occupying places close to holy land and ignoring requests to leave. They also went around killing people in Iraq and sabotaging their access to clean water in the 1990s. Also their support of Israel pissed a lot of people off, though that isn't necessarily a terrible thing.

 

[PinochetIsMyBro]

No, because if you want to be technical about it a group of muslims DID attack America. Though you are most assuredly accurate, you're not being very specific. If you wanted to be both you'd say "radical wahhabi muslims." Actually "radical wahhabi" is rather redundant, just say wahhabi muslims. They're all insane, what with it being a sort of pre-requisite for being in insane cults. Like scientology, but with more explosions and a fondness for twelve year olds!

Being bigoted doesn't even come into play unless you have an irrational hatred of muslims, and are making the statement for that reason. Which isn't the case at all.

 

[sogortheogre]

I would say no; its not. You are saying the people who have attacked us are/were Muslim. This is not to say all Muslims have attacked us, or if they represent the Islamic culture as a whole. It is a descriptor of their religion... I think it would be fine to say that Muslims attacked us. (This, of course, is me talking... I'm not very current on Islamic culture or beliefs [as in, whether or not the ones who attacked America share the same beliefs with a large portion of the Islamic community or if they are just extremists as they appear], but I'm hoping this is coming across as an unbiased comment view).

 

[ChildofGallifrey]

Is it bigoted to say that Nazi's invaded Poland? No, it's a fact. It's also a fact that not all Nazi's are/were evil like the ones that started WWII. To say that Muslims attacked the US is a fact, because the people that attacked on 9/11 (which I assume is what we're talking about) were Muslim extremists. To say that all Muslims are crazy, suicide-bombing extremists is nothing more than a blatant lie.

 

[Kurt Horsting]

The Taliban attacked the US on September 11th. They happen to be Muslim. Logically correct, but its very ignorant (and stupid, bigoted, inflammatory, etc...) to say that Islam is at war with america.

...I don't know what I should think about the fact that you mixed up Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The farthest the Taliban has ever traveled outside of Afghanistan is the other side of the Pakistani border. Al Qaeda has a few decentralized bases in a few countries in the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa, and small, scattered individual and group support elsewhere. They're one of the very, very few Muslim groups to engage in terrorism in the West, whereas the Taliban literally doesn't give two shits about anything not directly related to Afghanistan.

Probably just an unintentional mistake, I know, but just making sure.

I stand corrected. Sorry about that one. Same point applies though, and will be corrected soon.

 

[Tyshalle]

Wasn't the motivation based on Muslim belief? Obviously, not every Muslim hates America, but it's not bigoted to acknowledge that the extremists who attacked us were Muslim.

Nothing in the Muslim faith justifies what they did. They were sick, terrible men who killed innocent people and tried to justify it with religion.

Absolutely. QFT

 

[ShadowsofHope]

It really depends on how you take such a general, unspecific statement like that. Did Muslim individuals attack the U.S.? Yes. Did all Muslim individuals attack the U.S.? No. Do some Muslim sects hate the U.S.? Yes. Do all Muslim sects hate the U.S.? No.

These sorts of generalized statements never end well to public perception.