How Fair are We?

Yes I know this touches on a sensitive issue, but damn it, it’s important!!

Examine the following two statements:

1) Muslims attacked us on 911.

2) Jews attacked us on 911.

Both of these statements say exactly the same thing; that members of a particular religious group attacked us. The first statement strikes me as being normal. The second strikes me as being offensive. However, if they are equivalent statements, both should be equally offensive, or neither should be offensive at all.

What does this say about how we are conditioned in America? We perceive ourselves as being rational and fair, but the simple comparison shows us we are not.


Religious group attacked us on 9/11. It was a crime carried out by men. Men who are murdering bastard criminals who are FAR from "religious."

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Who's 'we'? I find both statements offensive

Is this another way of saying 'the Jews did 9/11' - one of the memes used to distract, divide and discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement?

You forgot a couple examples that might be just as instructive;

"Christians attacked us on 9/11" imagine; followers of 'Jesus' doing 9/11- yet Rumsfeld, who 'failed' to defend the US on 9/11 and immediately began pushing for war w/ Iraq based on zero evidence, frequently invoked 'the Lord', and included Bible quotes w/ war porn pics in his Iraq reports to 'born again' Bush, who also did nothing to harden security and protect the US, despite having received numerous warnings about an impending Al Qaeda plot, and despite knowing 1, then 2 WTC towers had been hit. What's more, these 2 and many other so-called 'Christians' likely played some role in contributing to the success of the attacks- and other people professing to be 'Christian', and who swore Oaths to defend the Constitution, worked to obstruct investigations into 9/11, before and after the attacks.

How about; "a cabal of extremely wealthy and powerful military-corporate complex insiders who are nationals of the US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel and probably other nations aided and abetted Arabic patsies in the 9/11 attacks in order to justify imperialist wars and police state-level power consolidation" - this is probably closest to the truth, and as a patriotic American I'm completely offended, but I'm holding out for a FULL investigation, one that will disclose who knew what when and what they did- for now it's enough to know the OCT is a fraud.

Anyone interested in learning more about the recent history of Islam and terror tactics, which includes principals of the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan radicalizing Muslims and using them to fight proxy wars, should check out:

Complete 911 Timeline: Geopolitics and Islamic Militancy

Jedi Mind Tricks

Jon, it is true that neither religious group carried out the 911 attacks. A majority of the perpetrators are probably men. They are certainly murderers.

However! We do not know if the perpetrators are or were religious. So you seem to be implying that 'murdering bastard criminals' are, by definition, 'far from religious'.

This is a post questioning religious propaganda and prejudice. All murderous bastards are not necessarily atheist or agnostic.

I hope you can see what you've done there.


A religion that condones brutally murdering 2,973 people.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?


I never claimed I could. I didn't say anyone was involved with 911 *because* of their religion, or even that they were religious.

Anyway, if you're just curious, Aum Shinrikyo did. I assume crusades etc. don't count for some reason.

Do you agree that religious people sometimes commit murder?


But because I don't want 9/11 Truth to turn into a religious battle, I am pointing out that those who committed murder on 9/11 did not follow the teachings of any religion. Much like those who participated in the crusades. Jesus wouldn't have wanted the crusades.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Think again

I'm glad we agree that religious people sometimes commit murder.

And I agree that religious battles are bad idea; my point was that implying only unbelievers murder people isn't the best way to avoid these.

But now you claim the participants in the crusades weren't 'following religious teachings' because 'Jesus wouldn't have wanted' the crusades. Maybe you make a distinction between 'religious' and 'follows religious teachings'. Are other religious people (apart from Christians) somehow not religious anymore if they murder someone? Does Jesus just want *some* people to kill, sometimes?

When you 'point out' that the criminals are not religious, you are speculating.

I like your Christ...

I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. - Ghandi

The point of that is... if people are truly religious, they will follow the teachings of their religion, and I can't name one religion that would condone the murder of 2,973 people.

The people who murdered 2,973 people on 9/11 were not TRULY religious, nor should we blame an entire religion or ideology for that crime.

Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?

Om Supreme Truth

Jon, I just gave you an example (the gas attacks in Tokyo). The LRA is another, there are plenty more.

Anyway who decides what, and what is not, 'truly' a part of a particular religion?

Just be careful that you don't imply unbelievers are more likely to murder people.

Thanks for the quote. I wasn't aware Ghandi complained about Christians before.


I know what you mean. As someone who during the Bush years (and even now) would REGULARLY browse the Barnes and Noble, and Borders stores in my area. I would go to the "Politics and Current Affairs" shelf each visit. After 9/11 for a few years (to a lesser extent now but still present), the overwhelming majority of books on the shelf were about Radical Islamic threat to America. As the Bush years went on, increasingly, there were an increasingly high number of anti-Bush books too, lol! (And these days there are probably more Obama books than "Islamofascist threat" books.) But the presence even now of books about the epic East vs. West struggle, the "Jihad against the West" for example, serves to subconsciously reinforce the myth of "Radical Muslims Out To Get Freedom Loving America."

On one such visit to this shelf, I thought, I wonder what kind of a stink would be created if there were a shelf saturated with books about "Jewish Extremism," "Judeofascism" or "Zionist Terrorism." I bet it would make the local news. I can see the headline. SCANDAL: Hundreds of Local Jewish People Protest Outside Community Bookstore, Claiming the store peddles an abundance of 'racist' and 'anti-Semitic' literature.

Think of the countless people whose eyes have perused a Barnes & Noble/Borders politics and current affairs shelf, which for at least the earlier part of the decade was dominated with books about the Islamofascist threat. There was never, to my knowledge, even one protest over the idea that those bookstores were racist against Muslims. No, many people probably saw the covers of those many books and it reinforced what they already know: Of COURSE there's an Islamofascist threat! After all, we all SAW those planes go into the buildings ON OUR TEEVEE!