no, but it is biggoted to say that all terrorists are muslims, but just stating that the people who attacked us were muslims is not. even george bush got this right when he said "we are not at war with islam" and thats fucking amazing. if someone as retarded as george bush can understand it, then the rest of america can too.
Is it biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the USA?
- Thread starter Sgt AssHead
- Start date
Recommended Videos
yes but the attack on pearl harbor was sanctioned by the japanese government. Thats y its understandable to say japan attacked america. while 9/11 was organized and carried out by extremists who were muslimMr Scott said:
The men who (presumably, not trying to start that here) were Muslim.
They were also men, between 5'5 and 6'4, had brown/blue/whatever colored eyes, had brown hair, etc.
See my point ?
They were also men, between 5'5 and 6'4, had brown/blue/whatever colored eyes, had brown hair, etc.
See my point ?
Cliff_m85 is completely wrong about his definitions of "literalist" versus "apologetic" religion. Religion is only how it is practiced; there is no "true" version of Christianity that most Christians don't practice, but rather the way mainstream Catholicism is practiced IS "true" Catholicism in its current form. What is considered to be orthodox or mainstream or secular is constantly shifting over time and geography. Therefore Islamic extremists are not practicing a version of Islam that is somehow "more literal," they are simply choosing certain practices that have evidence in religious texts and others that don't in a way that any religious sect will do. We call it "extreme" because it embraces violence and is based around lack of any compromise or even discourse with those who think differently, but it is not "extreme" in that it follows "more" Islam than other Islamic sects.
All that being said, Bill O' Reilly makes a living by angering people and stoking other people's fear and xenophobia. It is bigoted to use a sweeping brush to damn people who have nothing to do with the thing you're angry about. Even Muslims who sympathize with Al-Quaida are not our enemies until they pick up a gun and start killing. I would also like to note that those people also become the enemies of other Muslims; more Muslims have been killed by Islamic extremism than any other group of people.
Over 70 families of 9-11 victims are as Muslim as those victims were. There were two worship areas in the World Trade Center set aside specifically for Muslims. The Community Center is being built because a demographic shift has overcrowded the Muslim organization's other facilities. These people have been living in the city for decades; their children have grown up in the United States and speak flawless English. There is NO REASON to oppose the "ground zero mosque" other than islamophobia. The issue of Americans becoming extremists is as much a problem for American Muslims as it is for Americans of other faiths and has to do with a variety of factors other than the fact that these people are Muslim. There are Irish in this country who, historically, sympathized with the IRA. There are whites who sympathize with the KKK. Frankly, it is to be expected to a certain extent that some members of any particular demographic would sympathize with the groups that claim to be protecting that demographic.
Understanding that we have no choice but to interact with the Muslim world as respectfully as we must with any other civilization is absolutely necessary to curbing extremism. We can't do much more with guns and bombs than make more enemies. And we certainly can't treat Muslims as second-class citizens without betraying the entire point of this country. Islamic extremists are violently against the cultural plurality of our society. People like O'Reilly are doing a great job helping them out in that respect. His use of fear to define our actions has a lot in common with what we regard as terrorism.
All that being said, Bill O' Reilly makes a living by angering people and stoking other people's fear and xenophobia. It is bigoted to use a sweeping brush to damn people who have nothing to do with the thing you're angry about. Even Muslims who sympathize with Al-Quaida are not our enemies until they pick up a gun and start killing. I would also like to note that those people also become the enemies of other Muslims; more Muslims have been killed by Islamic extremism than any other group of people.
Over 70 families of 9-11 victims are as Muslim as those victims were. There were two worship areas in the World Trade Center set aside specifically for Muslims. The Community Center is being built because a demographic shift has overcrowded the Muslim organization's other facilities. These people have been living in the city for decades; their children have grown up in the United States and speak flawless English. There is NO REASON to oppose the "ground zero mosque" other than islamophobia. The issue of Americans becoming extremists is as much a problem for American Muslims as it is for Americans of other faiths and has to do with a variety of factors other than the fact that these people are Muslim. There are Irish in this country who, historically, sympathized with the IRA. There are whites who sympathize with the KKK. Frankly, it is to be expected to a certain extent that some members of any particular demographic would sympathize with the groups that claim to be protecting that demographic.
Understanding that we have no choice but to interact with the Muslim world as respectfully as we must with any other civilization is absolutely necessary to curbing extremism. We can't do much more with guns and bombs than make more enemies. And we certainly can't treat Muslims as second-class citizens without betraying the entire point of this country. Islamic extremists are violently against the cultural plurality of our society. People like O'Reilly are doing a great job helping them out in that respect. His use of fear to define our actions has a lot in common with what we regard as terrorism.
good first post
but thats an assumption not a fact. its a FACT that the japanese government sanctioned pearl harbor.Mr Scott said:
O'Reilly is implying exactly those assumptions to his audience.-Zen- said:
It is an accurate statement to say that Muslims attacked the U.S. But the implication here, and what this whole debate is about, is that "The Muslims" attacked the U.S. It's not necessarily bigoted to point out that the 9/11 hijackers were Muslims. But one's reasons for pointing that out matter. Generally if one thinks that the fact they were Muslim is relevant in terms of how we should view Islam or American Muslims I would call that bigoted. I know I'm narrowing the original topic here, but I believe that's exactly what Bill O'Reilly is constantly implying.
Well Bill O'Reilly might be a moron, and his analogy is clearly inapropriate.
However, as far as we know muslims did attack the USA in 9/11, therefor it is reasonable to say that america was attacked by muslims, to generalise and from this asume that they are fair representatives of all muslims however, is clearly wrong and unfair, but then again that's what O'reilly does best.
basically, i agree with -Zen-
However, as far as we know muslims did attack the USA in 9/11, therefor it is reasonable to say that america was attacked by muslims, to generalise and from this asume that they are fair representatives of all muslims however, is clearly wrong and unfair, but then again that's what O'reilly does best.
basically, i agree with -Zen-
It's stupid for him to compare a nation state to a religion. Last time I looked there was no country called "Muslims".
While there would be nothing linguistically wrong with the phrase, it would be factually wrong to use it in contexts implying that all Muslims were behind the attack on the US. Whether it would be ethically wrong to (misguidedly) smear a(ny) religion which itself discriminates on so many other fronts is of course a separate issue.
I fully support that opinion and that recommendation. It stopped being amusing a long time ago when people would take this person seriously, much less the bulk of how the 'news' is presented these days.Kortney said:
But back on topic:
Kind of small-minded to asign blame to a broad group such as a religion when the only ones involved just happened to claim similar religious beliefs. Take it a few steps further and it's the same as saying humans attacked the USA. Sure, it's technically true, but the claim's clearly missing adequate distinction. More likely than not, such exaggerations are being used to sensationalize by some media whore rather than accurately report information.
Even if a religion's leaders effectively have control of a whole country, every member of that religion most likely does not agree with the mindset or personal politics of a minority group within that religion. There's plenty of people who reject whole sections of their religion's holy scriptures or recorded viewpoints of significant figures, but they still identify themselves as members of that religion.
The problem with that phrase is that it's being literalistic when it suits them, and non-literalistic when it suits them.
The phrase: "Muslims attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon" is, technically, correct. They did not attack 'America', that phrase would imply a much larger attack than September 11.
If you want to go literalistic truth while being sensationalist, the best way to do it would be "Muslims mounted an attack on American soil." That's true. It's also a gross simplification, but it's technically true at each point.
The phrase: "Muslims attacked the World Trade Center and Pentagon" is, technically, correct. They did not attack 'America', that phrase would imply a much larger attack than September 11.
If you want to go literalistic truth while being sensationalist, the best way to do it would be "Muslims mounted an attack on American soil." That's true. It's also a gross simplification, but it's technically true at each point.
true, but they were working for a terrorist organization that uses islam as a driving force for war. and said terrorist organization was harbored by a government that is based solely on the teachings of islam. and in fact made it illegal for anyone in that country to practice a religon other than islam. so therefore i do believe it is ok to say muslims attacked the US. no i dont believe all muslims are evil. far from it in fact. i believe the vast majority of muslims are good people. but just like everywhere it's that small precentage that fucks it up for everyone else and gives a group of people a bad name. i dont hate muslims. i do however hate terrorists. and the terrorists we are fighting are members of extremist sects of islam. so ya. muslims attacked the US. thats my opinion and im stickin to it.maddawg IAJI said: