Is it biggoted to say that Muslims attacked the USA?
- Thread starter Sgt AssHead
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Before I get to the topic I just wanted to say every time I hear Bill O' Riley talk, I feel as though my I.Q. is dropping.
Short Answer: Yes.
So to get down to it, yes Bill we were attacked by (people who were) Muslums, but really why stop there? Why don't we broaden the group and say that we were attacked by:
-Men
-Dark Haried People
-Dark Skinned People
-People who know how to fly a plain, but don't know how to land them
-People who are on a student Visa
-People who sneaked in Canada instead of Mexico
-People with small penises
To summarize being ambiguous is not an excuse. It just shows that you're willing to blame a group that you're not associated. After all we all know what would happen to you if we went after all the men with small penises...
"But what WW II" I hear you ask. Alright, you want to play that card to justify being vague? Well let me just quote FDR's famous speech.
"Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan."
Notice that he did not just say Japan. He said naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. So if the President is willing to make the effort of being that specific, I don't see why your lazy ass can't do the same. Then again professionalism has never been your forte has it:
Short Answer: Yes.
So to get down to it, yes Bill we were attacked by (people who were) Muslums, but really why stop there? Why don't we broaden the group and say that we were attacked by:
-Men
-Dark Haried People
-Dark Skinned People
-People who know how to fly a plain, but don't know how to land them
-People who are on a student Visa
-People who sneaked in Canada instead of Mexico
-People with small penises
To summarize being ambiguous is not an excuse. It just shows that you're willing to blame a group that you're not associated. After all we all know what would happen to you if we went after all the men with small penises...
"But what WW II" I hear you ask. Alright, you want to play that card to justify being vague? Well let me just quote FDR's famous speech.
"Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate, and of the House of Representatives:
Yesterday, December 7th, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan."
Notice that he did not just say Japan. He said naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. So if the President is willing to make the effort of being that specific, I don't see why your lazy ass can't do the same. Then again professionalism has never been your forte has it:
No it's not. If I wrap myself in the Danish flag and beats up an old lady while shouting "For the queen!" that doesn't make my government or fellow countrymen responsible for my actions; it just makes me a nutjob who abuse symbols.Danish rage said:
There are plenty of actual problems with Islam - and Abrahamic religion in general - but this one isn't one which has scriptural basis in the religion.
Religion, being so outdated and absolutist in its phrasings, is as always an incredibly (mis)useful tool to justify the most despicable of things, and a dangerous form of ideology for that alone. And given what negative aspects are actually found in the Qu'ran (to say nothing on the Hadith...) I take little pity on those who would knowingly and willingly adhear to it in its indivisible entirety.
well i guess there must be a lot of nutjobs i the middeleast then.Imperator_DK said:
can´t argue there.
I am soooooooo glad to see that this forum is not a member of Bill O'Reilly
Cheers from Holland!
Cheers from Holland!
/ThreadKortney said:
This guy has it in one. The attacks of japan and germany were a unified effort by Basically an entire group of people to fight another group, therefor to say we were attacked by the japanese is correct, to say it is not is to say because three guys punched you they didnt attack you because their ears didnt join in. The government, backed by the people had a single clear aim for the entire nation, a driving force of war with the entire OTHER nation of the USA and the free world.
However if for example the nazi part only consisted of 30% of the population and ONLY the nazi party invaded poland (the other 70% staying behind) THEN it would be the same as the extremist attacks.
I call it "extremist" attacks because everyone who attacked us was an extremist. Everyone likely to attack us is an extremist, they are the label generally given to the group in ANY RELIGION RACE OR CREED that is likely to be a terrorist or use violence and force in a way similar (if scaled down) to the attacks we saw. Therefore when i say extremist attacks i am refering to that tiny group that did indeed launch the attacks. And no one else. I am in no way implying that anyone else could be associated with it.
This is kinda obvious, however it does raise the question, was america at war with vietnam? Or just the vietkong, a smaller subsector of non goverened militia? Is it a similar thing? I dont really know.
There will be hundreds of thousands! Plenty to fill our TV screens every night!Danish rage said:
Out of some 250.000.000 inhabitants, that is. So going so far as to assume there was as many as 2,5 million terrorists in the Middle East, certainly vastly more personnel than the US has fielded in its wars there, that would still only be 1 % of the total population.
So depends on how you define "lots", really.
That image is a shop right? One of the guys is holding a sign saying the fantastic four are coming.Tsaba said:First off:
Yes, we are at war with a group of Islam that practice their religion as a form of government in a Fascist manner.
Second off:
No, we are not at war with the people who practice Islam as a religion and only desire to raise their families in peace and live there lives.
Third off:
They don't help there argument when they do things such as this:
Last:
Why are you quoting Bill O'Reilley? Your not helping yourself out.
Well it would be right to say America was attacked by Muslims, but not that Muslims attacked America.
The Muslim faith did not attack America, but those who attacked the USA did based partly on their Muslim beliefs. The same rationalisations could be attached to almost any religion so Islam wasn't the reason for the attack. It was political.
The Muslim faith did not attack America, but those who attacked the USA did based partly on their Muslim beliefs. The same rationalisations could be attached to almost any religion so Islam wasn't the reason for the attack. It was political.
Watch out Europe. The Thing is coming to wreck your shit UP!Grey Carter said:That image is a shop right? One of the guys is holding a sign saying the fantastic four are coming.Tsaba said:First off:
Yes, we are at war with a group of Islam that practice their religion as a form of government in a Fascist manner.
Second off:
No, we are not at war with the people who practice Islam as a religion and only desire to raise their families in peace and live there lives.
Third off:
They don't help there argument when they do things such as this:
Last:
Why are you quoting Bill O'Reilley? Your not helping yourself out.
<img height=300>http://www.tabletmag.com/images/features/feature_739_story.jpg
Yes, Japan attacked the United States under command from their superiors. The Muslims who attacked America were NOT acting under orders, they did it themselves. America just pretended that they didn't and it was an invasion or some shit, so declared war on an (somewhat) innocent country.
Also, they exaggerated it so that the resulting panic would allow them to make questionable decisions and laws without anyone caring. You know, like what Hitler did with the Reichstag Fire.
Oh yea, and people should learn the difference between a Country, and a Religion that is primarily followed in several countries.
Also, they exaggerated it so that the resulting panic would allow them to make questionable decisions and laws without anyone caring. You know, like what Hitler did with the Reichstag Fire.
Oh yea, and people should learn the difference between a Country, and a Religion that is primarily followed in several countries.
'Muslim' is not a race for one thing and two, no it is not.
Muslim Extremists attacked the USA, they've declared war on the USA.
To call the 9/11 attacks 'Acts of Terror' without pointing out who did it removes the 'why they did it'.
It's revisionist history.
Muslim Extremists attacked the USA, they've declared war on the USA.
To call the 9/11 attacks 'Acts of Terror' without pointing out who did it removes the 'why they did it'.
It's revisionist history.
I'm sure it's been said before, but let me reiterate: Germany and Japanese are countries, you were at war with the countries and therefore their entire populations. Sure there were some Germans and some Japanese who didn't agree with the decision, but they weren't particularly in the majority.
Now the Muslims that attacked on 9/11 were a non-representative handful of Muslims who have nothing to do with most of the others, it's not even like there was one Muslim from every Muslim country or something like that, and even if there was one single Muslim from your country among them, does that make your country the attacker?
No, saying Muslims attacked the US on 9/11 is like saying Christians attacked Poland on 1939/9/1; sure, they were Germans, but they were also Christians, weren't they? Doesn't matter that it's only a very small portion of all Christians, it was Christians who attacked Poland and therefore all Christians are Nazis. Right?
Now the Muslims that attacked on 9/11 were a non-representative handful of Muslims who have nothing to do with most of the others, it's not even like there was one Muslim from every Muslim country or something like that, and even if there was one single Muslim from your country among them, does that make your country the attacker?
No, saying Muslims attacked the US on 9/11 is like saying Christians attacked Poland on 1939/9/1; sure, they were Germans, but they were also Christians, weren't they? Doesn't matter that it's only a very small portion of all Christians, it was Christians who attacked Poland and therefore all Christians are Nazis. Right?
A little off topic, but whenever I see your avatar I can't stop singing You Spin Me Right Round.Pirate Kitty said: