"Muslims killed us on 9/11"

[wingFeather]

http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

Maybe you're putting your fingers in your ears and screaming, "LA, LA, LA LA!" really loud because you don't want to hear that many of them are.

That sure is a high profile site there. They should promote it on Geocities or Compuserve It's almost like they don't really care... which proves my point.

The good news is that God still loves them.

[Crazyirish]

I don't see "Islam" doing anything to distance themselves. Hmmm...

There are plenty of despicable white christians out there. I don't go out of my way to differentiate myself from them. Maybe its because I assume any idiot can tell the difference. Maybe I'm wrong...

[srellim234]

wing- that site is not high profile but it shows a lot of condemnations have taken place. Many of them have taken place and most were not picked up by news organizations beholden to corporate profits because those organization have a financial interest in maintaining conflict. That includes propaganda outlets like Fox and MSNBC. I did see quite a few early on and have seen many since.

[wingFeather]

There are plenty of despicable white christians out there. I don't go out of my way to differentiate myself from them. Maybe its because I assume any idiot can tell the difference. Maybe I'm wrong...

Of course not - because the Christian church is not blowing up buildings & taking over countries

But seriously...

[srellim234]

Tell that to any blown up or shot up abortion clinic....

[96Qowner]

There are plenty of despicable white christians out there. I don't go out of my way to differentiate myself from them. Maybe its because I assume any idiot can tell the difference. Maybe I'm wrong...

Excuse me, but exactly how would any idiot be able to tell the difference? If, for instance, 7% of your fellow Christians believed it was righteous to kill innocents in the name of Jesus, how would anyone be able to tell that you don't? If the governments of entire countries were based on killing innocents in the name of Jesus, would you think it was important to at least stand out of the way while someone else took care of the problem? What do you suppose any idiot would think of you if you sheltered them and hindered efforts to stop them?

If you "don't go out of your way", why would any idiot think you despise them? How are they not your problem?

[AppleBonker]

7% of your fellow Christians believed it was righteous to kill innocents in the name of Jesus, how would anyone be able to tell that you don't?

Playing the odds in this ^ example, I'd probably expect a Christian to not be ok with killing innocent people. I'm not much of a betting man, but if you give me roughly a 93% chance of being correct, I'd wager on that all day long. More importantly, at what percentage do YOU feel it is ok to not have to differentiate yourself from that small subset? What if the Gallup poll showed 5% thought it was justified? 1%? 0.000001%? Where is your line drawn? And why should mine be drawn at the same point?

The issue with the statement was not the accuracy. O'Reilly was correct. Muslims did kill people on 9/11. But why did he choose "Muslim" as the describing factor. It's a vague term to describe that group. He could've said people killed us, which would also be accurate. But generally when making statements, it is useful to describe things in as detailed a way possible. "Extremist Muslims" might have been a better option in this case. Ah, but that wouldn't be quite as exciting and certainly wouldn't generate as much outrage.

If the governments of entire countries were based on killing innocents in the name of Jesus, would you think it was important to at least stand out of the way while someone else took care of the problem? What do you suppose any idiot would think of you if you sheltered them and hindered efforts to stop them?

What about killing in the name of oil? Or other businesses? That's far more noble.

How are they not your problem?

I am my problem. Just that. Nothing more. I don't need to answer for the crimes of any other person that is in any way affiliated with me. Done.

[wingFeather]

AppleBonker, I find myself agreeing with most of your post. What is wrong with me today?

But I diverge when you say "But why did he choose "Muslim" as the describing factor"... he said that because they were Muslims, as can be proven by their behavior. Muhammad was quite the warrior & started a ton of s*** in his day. Not really the behavior of God's messenger... but I can see how that behavior carries on in his worshipers today. It would seem that a good Muslim should aggressively attack outsiders.

[AppleBonker]

And what behavior is that? That they practice Islam? If so, then I agree. I'm not denying that they were of that faith.

But, conversely, if I were to claim (after the Oklahoma City bombing) that "white people are killing us" would you be opposed to this statement? Or maybe that "white people are killing kids"? While both are accurate statements, I've left them vague enough to hopefully make you afraid of white people. That is where the problem lies. Why not be as accurate as possible? O'Reilly knows damn well that he could have been more specific. There is only one goal I can see that he was shooting for by being intentionally vague - creating more fear and hatred directed at ALL Muslims rather than a specific subset of them.

[dusred]

What about killing in the name of oil? Or other businesses? That's far more noble.

Please explain how and where we are killing for oil.

[AppleBonker]

I think you edited while I was in the middle of typing. Either that or I completely missed the bottom portion of your post.

It would seem that a good Muslim should aggressively atttack outsiders.

I have a problem with this sentiment. There are plenty of Muslims on this board that are not violent towards those who are not of Islamic faith. The Catholic bible has plenty of references to how one should keep slaves. Would you argue that a good Catholic should keep slaves?

[AppleBonker]

What about killing in the name of oil? Or other businesses? That's far more noble.

Please explain how and where we are killing for oil.

That was a mostly tongue-in-cheek response. If you're going to claim that ALL Muslims are attacking us because we aren't Muslim, then I have every right to claim that we are attacking and exerting our will on the Middle East in order to obtain cheaper oil sources. While some Muslims may want to attack those that do not follow their beliefs, I don't think this applies to all (or even most). There are other reasons for their hatred that I am not going to rehash (helio has already explained how US policy has affected certain regions of the world that have led to some of the hatred). And if you think that oil played absolutely no role in many of our policies/decisions, I think you are being a bit naive. I'm sure it played a role (maybe small) as hatred for non-Muslims played a role in attacks against us. However, I don't believe in either case that it was the primary concern.

Edit: again, when I say "you" that is not directed at any person specifically.

[wingFeather]

Occasionally I will edit a post later on - to make it appear less incendiary. Sorry about the confusion.

I have a problem with this sentiment. There are plenty of Muslims on this board that are not violent towards those who are not of Islamic faith

They apparently do not follow Muhammad's teachings too closely from what I read

Would you argue that a good Catholic should keep slaves?

This is a thread about Catholics?

Another edit: Muhammad was all about storming into lands & killing people at will. 9/11 seems like a natural extension of his divine role model... right?

[AppleBonker]

Occasionally I will edit a post later on - to make it appear less incendiary. Sorry about the confusion.

I wasn't complaining. It was more an explanation of why my post immediately following yours might not have made sense.

This is a thread about Catholics?

Nope. Just a comparison. If you can argue that all good Muslims should be violent (based on some of the teachings) it seems equally reasonable that I can claim all good Catholics should keep slaves (again based on some of the teachings).

They apparently do not follow Muhammad's teachings too closely from what I read

Another edit: Muhammad was all about storming into lands & killing people at will. 9/11 seems like a natural extension of his divine role model... right?

I don't have much to comment on here. I haven't read the Qur'an or studied Muhammad's teachings. This may be true, but based on the comments of those more familiar with Islam I am doubting it. This is another one of those times where I feel I must sit out on the argument because of my lack of knowledge. I don't want to have my lack of understanding of Islam convey the wrong message or claim something as truth when it is patently false.

[wingFeather]

It was not the same as early American slavery. In biblical times, people often sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

Today we would call these people "mortgagees" or "Master Card Customers" (or even "welfare recipients" LOL). The suggested rules for slaves could be compared to today's Federal regulations on fair credit practices.

It was indeed a good question, though!

[96Qowner]

Sheesh, someone points out a straw man and everyone commences to bash it.

I have actually never ever heard anyone ever claim, in person, or in the media, that ALL Muslims are abominations, or even responsible for the decades of terrorlst attacks against us and others. Never have. What I constantly hear is people claiming that ALL Muslims aren't abominations. Well ... um ... ok .... um ... no one ever claimed they were. See? No one ever did.

So, I just wish that those who take issue with the way people like O'Reilly speak, would just drop the whole "ALL Muslims aren't bad" stuff. It's pointless. It prevents productive conversation.

Just to set the record straight, I've never met a Muslim that I didn't like, and I've had Muslim acquaintances in America for 30 years - Persians, Pakistanis, Sudanese, Egyptian, Lebanese, etc. I don't feel the slightest bit cautious about Muslims in America. I'm more likely to smile at someone who looks Muslim on an airplane than to beetle my brows.

But this isn't about regular normal Muslims. This is about a significant portion of the worldwide Muslim population who have been convinced that it's right and proper to kill innocent people in the name of Allah, and I am greatly disturbed when Muslims scowl at me because I have correctly identified the culprits as Muslims, and I don't understand how anyone can claim that it isn't a Muslim problem.

Someone has to step up and take care of it, and it seems to me that Muslims would be better able to do that. That's what makes me flare up - the lack of responsibility, the way Muslim governments nurture and support these people. They purposely instill hatred in these people, disavow all responsibility for their crimes, then stand in our way and vilify us as we try to exterminate the foul creatures they've created.

For me, it's never been a judgment against Islam. You can talk about the warrior foundations of Islam all you want, and that'll just draw comparisons to the Crusades. It's not up to any of us to judge another man's Faith.

[AppleBonker]

It was not the same as early American slavery. In biblical times, people often sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, sometimes doctors, lawyers, and even politicians were slaves of someone else. Some people actually chose to be slaves so as to have all their needs provided for by their masters.

And this doesn't still raise moral questions for you? Isn't slavery morally wrong? I don't care if they agreed to it or not. If times are tough, don't most religions preach to help those people and not buy out their debts and own them? If someone owes me, my idea of a fix is not to allow them to enter into a contract of servitude. If one were to follow the Christian faith, wouldn't the ideal solution be to absolve them of their debts?

I have actually never ever heard anyone ever claim, in person, or in the media, that ALL Muslims are abominations, or even responsible for the decades of terrorlst attacks against us and others

But that is exactly what is going on here. He could've said radical Muslims killed people. But no, he chose to leave it a broad statement that Muslims killed people. Look, if radical Christians commit some heinous crime, you wouldn't hear him complain that Christians are killing people. That is the issue at hand here. He is vilifying groups of people with a double standard. Maybe he believes that not all Muslims are bad, but there are definitely people out there that view him and listen to him and don't make that distinction.

So, I just wish that those who take issue with the way people like O'Reilly speak, would just drop the whole "ALL Muslims aren't bad" stuff. It's pointless. It prevents productive conversation.

Having explained above, this is exactly the counterargument necessary. Had O'Reilly been more accurate and said that "radical Muslims" committed these crimes, there wouldn't be an issue.

This is about a significant portion of the worldwide Muslim population who have been convinced that it's right and proper to kill innocent people in the name of Allah

But what is significant? What is that percentage? And who is determining that it is significant? Maybe what is significant for you is insignificant for me. And is it a significant percentage of Muslims in the US? Or just in certain countries? If there are a few countries that are more problematic, wouldn't it be an issue of those countries, and not the Islamic faith in general?

[AppleBonker]

And don't for a second think that I'm arguing that all Muslims are good people. In fact, I'm more of a pessimist and think that most people are inherently selfish and are more than willing to step on others to advance their own situation. This isn't a problem of one group or another, but rather of humanity in general.

[AppleBonker]

Morality changes between time periods and who is viewing the situation. It should not/cannot be defined as what you're requesting it be defined as - a globally acceptable standard. By your beliefs, Bernie Madoff would be observed of his financial debt and not be needed to serve prison time. Seems off, doesn't it?

Then you have misinterpreted my comment. Committing a legal crime is punishable by law. That's how it goes. My argument was simply that slavery is never a viable moral resolution. If someone is indebted to me and has not committed a crime, the solution is not slavery. It never has been, and it never will be, a morally sound solution.

And how do you factually know that he wouldn't state that "Christians are killing people"? Again, you're taking broad generalizations and making unsubstantiated claims.

Would you not agree that radical Christians have committed heinous acts before? I'm not about to search it out to find examples, but I promise it wouldn't take long. And though this has happened, O'Reilly has never made a statement that Christians (and not a subset thereof) are responsible for said crimes. It hasn't happened yet, and he's had plenty of opportunities. Therefor, I feel fairly confident that he wont ever do it.

Thanks for proving my previous statement. You can't take things for granted when you have little factual evidence to stand on.

I'm definitely missing what you're claiming here. Mind explaining it a bit more?

And though this will make me sound like an a**, I am going to say it anyway. I'm confused as to how you can issue a response that explains religion and (seemingly) your interpretation of it and follow that immediately with a request to keep religion out of the discussion. I think that if you read through my posts (at least in this thread), at no point have I said that any religion was wrong, or that any religion preached anything negative. Others, however, have made statements that some percentage of a given religion was evil. I feel like that is far more problematic than my statements have been. However, once I attack a religion or a person for following that religion, I will gladly accept the vacation that is doled out to me. And I will hold you mods/admins to that - I expect to be temporarily banned for such a violation.

[srellim234]

I disagree with Apple's assessment of the human population but I will defend his statement from your weak attempt at proving him wrong. Apple's quote even said "most people." For you to pull a site that has a few anecdotes and say that refutes him is ridiculous. Until there are a few billion stories posted at helpothers.org it does nothing to refute his statement.

Very much the same as saying the actions of the terrorists reflect the Muslim religion and Muslim population in general. Its going to take a lot more than Bill O'Reilly saying it to get me to believe it.

As for the Christian right and Bush's "Holy War," how did O'Reilly handle it? How did he handle Blackwater's religious motives in Iraq? I gave up on him and most things Fox so I honestly don't know what his reaction was. Did he condemn them for the injection of Christianity into that war?

[C-Kwik]

Understand that he said this in the context of the Controversy of the planned mosque at the site of the WTC. Knowing that many people already make the association that Islam teaches terrorism, if he was in disagreement with the entirety of the Muslim population holding the blame for this, than he should have chose his words more carefully in the first place. And even if it was a slip of the tongue, he had the opportunity to immediately clarify who he was specifically referring to but instead he states something to the effect of "Are you saying they weren't Muslims who killed us?" He seemed to change his tune when Barbara Walters brought up the moral issue of condemning the entirety of a religion for those actions. And while this may be my opinion, most of the opposition to the mosque appear to do so based on the poorly conceived view that generalizes Muslims as the responsible party for 9/11. And perpetuating that nonsense is not helping matters one bit. We should all try and be sensitive about how we state things in regards to this subject. These kinds of generalizations are just the kinds of things such extremists will use to fuel anger and hatred against us. And as a face in the public, doing so tends to rationalize it for those who hold this view.

As an aside, as far as religion is concerned, in this topic, due to the very nature of the topic, we can't expect some of the discussion not to include some aspects of religion. But the core of this debate doesn't center on the specifics of any religion so I see no problem with it. Just tread lightly and refrain from making religion the core issue. Were all grown-ups here so there isn't any reason we can't have a civil intelligent discussion.

[heliochrome85]

this is why Bill O'Reilly's remarks were anything but benign.
http://www.tennessean.com/article/20101 ... an-proceed

that the US Government has to go out and actively defend that Islam IS a religion and not a political movement designed to force sharia law, is embarassing. Wanna know who is fueling the fire? Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh.

[IBCoupe]

I'll just leave these right here...

As morals and acceptable practices change the Catholic church molds their actions to fit within those boundaries, as with any other religion.

he said that because they were Muslims, as can be proven by their behavior. Muhammad was quite the warrior & started a ton of s*** in his day.

[AppleBonker]

Sure - I was just stating that it would be impossible for you to make societal generalizations (i.e. slavery being morally wrong and even your claim of O'Reilly not complaining that Christians killed people) when "what is significant for you is insignificant for me". Slavery may be a significant moral crime to you, whereas some view it as a moral-norm. Fact: Slavery is still a morally acceptable practice in several areas (Sudan, certain areas of India). And, more than likely, if radical Christians were involved in the events that transpired on 9/11 O'Reilly would be stating the same that he is now, sub Muslim for Christian.

My comment about significance or lack thereof was directed at determining what portion of on group's followers being "evil" would be needed before I condemn the group. But if you want to try to spin that comment to deal with immoral issues, I'll play ball. FACT: Slavery is NEVER morally acceptable. Period. Anyone who believes this is morally bankrupt (and that statement is coming from a guy who claims to have fairly loose morals). It may be lawful in certain parts of the word, but that hardly makes it moral. If murder were legal, would you make the same claim that it is morally acceptable in that portion of the word? If you seriously intended to say that there are geographical limitations to immoral acts, I honestly will not be able to take any moral argument you present with any level of validity.

Yes, there have been Christian movements that involved terrorlst acts in the past. However, there have been no reported terrorlst actions (and no previous Christian terroristic actions discussed) since The O'Reilly Factor which premiered in 1996, which would mean that you couldn't factually state O'Reilly would not hold them responsible. If his position was evident by past discussion or current Christian terrorlst events which he has commented on, then it would be plausible to state that he would/wouldn't hold them accountable - but, there isn't.

What was his response to the Tiller murder a year ago (or whenever it was)? I'm fairly certain he didn't say Christians are murdering doctors. In fact, I'd guess he made some comment about how Tiller was evil for performing late-term abortions even when covering the mans murder. But he most certainly would've avoided painting a all Christians with the same brush as the killer, something he clearly has no problem with when it comes to other religions.

And check out his response to the whole situation:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/oreilly/i ... t_id=86923

And I'll paraphrase: "You know I'm not anti-Muslim, but Muslims are the problem"

But slavery is a viable solution is certain areas of the world and in the mindsets of those living in times passed. It can be, in some people's views, a morally sound solution whether YOU like it or not.

Then those people are morally bankrupt and we should certainly not be turning to them for guidance.

[AppleBonker]

SWEET man! Too bad that if I recall correctly (AND I do), O'Reilly corrected himself thereafter by stating that "radical" Muslims partook in the terroristic actions on 9/11. So, I couldn't give two s*** if you think that "Its goin to tke a lot more than Bill O'Reilly saying it to get me to believe it." Guess what! Technically, he didn't say it once he corrected himself. He doesn't believe it either. So bringing that up is like putting starch in Chinese food...useless babble!

It doesn't matter that he corrected himself later. The fact is, he intentionally avoided classifying the terrorlst as anything other than Muslims. His apology seems like he's saying "clearly I meant that Muslim extremists/terrorists committed these crimes, but if you're too stupid to realize this I am sorry". Intentionally misleading people (even if they are "stupid") to enhance anti-Muslim sentiment is not something you can just apologize for and claim that you aren't anti-Muslim.

Right now I'm 2,787 stores to 0 stories. Bada Bing, Bada Boom!

To be honest, it's not worth my time to start a log. But I would bet that even if I took up the task on my own and only recorded actions that I PERSONALLY had seen, I could amass well over 3k in under a month. If you want to disagree with my statement, that's fine. I know what I see on a daily basis, and it's not worth my time to prove it out to you. Once I see change, my generalizations with be adjusted. I'm not holding my breath though.

[dusred]

This is a question for you Helio:

In Islam are there different variations of the Islamic religion? In America many of us call ourselves Christians but we belong to dozens of different churches (Catholics, Baptists, Southern Baptists, Methodists, Mormons, ect.). The only thing that we really have in common is our faith in The Christ. Is it similar with Islam or are all Muslims of the same church?

[heliochrome85]

I'll try to respond if I get time between patients today. Good question though.

[dusred]

I'll try to respond if I get time between patients today. Good question though.

Headed to Phoenix so I'll check back tonight.

[AppleBonker]

In your viewpoint. Others could view it as him correcting himself and taking a non-compulsory, discretional action to properly justify his position - something that people in the bad, bad world that your generalizations encompass wouldn't be morally obligated to do

I see what you're saying. My thought is that O'Reilly was plenty smart to know what he was doing before-hand. I don't agree with him in most cases, but I will admit that he is actually intelligent and knows what he's doing. You're claiming that he didn't know exactly what he was saying at the time, and therefor needed to amend the comment at a later point. I still say he's smarter than this, but I don't know that either of us have any way to prove the other wrong.

3,000 in a month? What are you, Superman? Clark Kent by day, seeing the injustices in the newspaper world! Superman by night, seeing the injustices in the real world! Please. And, yes, don't bother proving it to me, as you've again made an unfounded statement and something that would never hold true, even if you did create a "log"

So you wouldn't believe it even if I did keep a journal of injustices I see on a daily basis. That really does eliminate any incentive for me to do so, doesn't it? In any one of those stories on the site you posted, I'd be interested to know how many people looked the other way rather than helping before the helpful person came along. Feel free to believe that the first person who came upon the situation decided to help, but I don't find that very realistic.

AGAIN, in your viewpoint. Against your beliefs, you cannot set a global or timeless moral compass. Why don't you understand that?

Sure I can, and people/governments/populations have for ages. Murder is morally wrong. Wouldn't you agree? It doesn't matter where you live or during what time-period. There are a few massive moral injustices that the population of the world can agree upon. If someone can't get these few important issues right, why should I lean on them for any of the lesser issues that tend to enter much more of a gray area?

Slavery is a way of live in certain areas of the world and is most likely considered to be morally acceptable

I'll go back to murder. If that were considered by a population to be morally acceptable, would you be ok with it? Just because a group of people believes it to be right does not make it so. There are a few times where I believe every person's moral compass should point in the same direction. Murder, rape and slavery are probably the key areas. I'm not trying to force my opinion on anyone. If you want to think that any one of those three is perfectly acceptable, have at it. But, what I will say is that I will NEVER trust an individual who feels that way with more trivial moral dilemmas.

And I'm not stating that slavery is morally acceptable - it's not to me. But, to some, it may be/was/is morally acceptable

So that means you believe those people are wrong?

You keep saying "I know what I see on a daily basis" and "Once I see change".

Change doesn't start by people sitting on their a** making moral requirements for others around them. Take an initiative, get up from your couch, and make the change you want. You could start by helping an old lady cross a street.

Feel free to keep up the veiled personal shots. I find it amusing. If you'd like to come spend a few days with me and see if I live up to your moral "standards" I would welcome it. But you are also welcome to remain where you're at and just assume that I attempt to pass moral judgment on everyone in the world. Am I perfect? Far from it. But I'd like to think that I'm doing a much better job than the vast majority of people out there (again, I'm biased so take that with a grain of salt).

I am not setting requirements for how others must think. I am, however, setting minimum requirements for me to think a person's viewpoint is valid. If someone thinks that murder/slavery/rape are ever acceptable, I am going to consider all moral viewpoints they hold invalid. If someone cannot perform simple addition, I'm not about to trust them on calculus either. Same principle.

[wingFeather]

The difference is that if a Christian became violent, he would be turning *AWAY* from his religion.