Ground Zero mosque wins approval !!

[NWO]

Because the attacks are perceived as being done in the name of Islam.

For countless century, people thought that women should not work along side men. Doesn't make make it any more right.

 

[Vinod2070]

Again, the Indian missed the forest for the trees, it had the words Islam and Pakistan in it and he can be forgiven :

It's not about Indians!

Enough said.

 

[linkinpark]

Again, the Indian missed the forest for the trees, it had the words Islam and Pakistan in it and he can be forgiven :

What's tree for you may be forest for someone else and vice-versa.

What's wrong with what Thomas Friedman said. While muslims want mosque and other structures built in US, the very same people don't allow church/temple back in their own Islamic republic countries. This is nothing but hypocrisy and double standards. I think tolerance should be a two-way street.

 

[Developereo]

I am always surprised at the ferocity and consistency of attacks on muslims by so many Indian members on this forum. Keep in mind they are not attacking Pakistan or Pakistanis, which would be understandable, but Islam itself and muslims in general.

If there was ever any doubt, it reaffirms the premise for the creation of Pakistan. While we acknowledge that there are well meaning, open-minded Indians, it is all too clear that India has a major infestation of rabid anti-muslim fanatics.

 

[foxbat]

I am always surprised at the ferocity and consistency of attacks on muslims by so many Indian members on this forum. Keep in mind they are not attacking Pakistan or Pakistanis, which would be understandable, but Islam itself and muslims in general.

If there was ever any doubt, it reaffirms the premise for the creation of Pakistan. While we acknowledge that there are well meaning, open-minded Indians, it is all too clear that India has a major infestation of rabid anti-muslim fanatics.

I am sure niether Dr Kalam or Mr Hamid Ansari share your sentiments. Now you may point them out as solitary examples, but they are not. There are countless such examples..

I personally think you are over generalizing here. By your logic, specially going by some of the racist remarks you get to hear from senior and even elite Pakistani members about Hindus, the whole Pakistan should be labeled as a country of racist bigots.

It is not since a forum where the main pastime of most members is to indulge in cyber wrestling between India and Pakistan can not be an accurate representation of the 2 respective countries.

 

[Developereo]

I personally think you are over generalizing here. By your logic, specially going by some of the racist remarks you get to hear from senior and even elite Pakistani members about Hindus, the whole Pakistan should be labeled as a country of racist bigots.

Please read my post again.

I did not say that all Indians were anti-muslim bigots but, judging by the number of Indians (and Indians hiding behind other countries' flags), it is clear that India has a sizeable case of Islamophobia.

 

[Vinod2070]

I am always surprised at the ferocity and consistency of attacks on muslims by so many Indian members on this forum. Keep in mind they are not attacking Pakistan or Pakistanis, which would be understandable, but Islam itself and muslims in general.

If there was ever any doubt, it reaffirms the premise for the creation of Pakistan. While we acknowledge that there are well meaning, open-minded Indians, it is all too clear that India has a major infestation of rabid anti-muslim fanatics.

May be you are mixing the cause and effect!

Anyway, I think the reverse is much more truer. Pakistanis diss the religion of their ancestors far more and with no restraints. It is openly done in their media, textbooks and general discourse.

---------- Post added at 05:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:53 PM ----------

Please read my post again.

I did not say that all Indians were anti-muslim bigots but, judging by the number of Indians (and Indians hiding behind other countries' flags), it is clear that India has a sizeable case of Islamophobia.

This is a fancy word that is used too often and has no meaning.

Many Muslims are far more kaafirophobic than the reverse.

 

[foxbat]

Please read my post again.

I did not say that all Indians were anti-muslim bigots but, judging by the number of Indians (and Indians hiding behind other countries' flags), it is clear that India has a sizeable case of Islamophobia.

Assuming all 3000 or so Indian members here have Islamophobia. Are you using that to label India, a country of 1.2 billion people as having a sizable case of Islamophobia.

As I said, sir, your sample is biased. Its just like by sampling a platoon of India's Garud Commandos, I can not say that India has a sizable number of people who can hit a bulls eye at 30 meters...

 

[Developereo]

Assuming all 3000 or so Indian members here have Islamophobia. Are you using that to label India, a country of 1.2 billion people as having a sizable case of Islamophobia.

As I said, sir, your sample is biased. Its just like by sampling a platoon of India's Garud Commandos, I can not say that India has a sizable number of people who can hit a bulls eye at 30 meters...

There you go with the all bit again, so let me repeat myself.

Of the handful of Indian members who post regularly, there is a sizeable percentage who post anti-muslim vitriole. If this percentage is representative of Indians at large, then it translates into a serious case of Islamophobia.

 

[foxbat]

There you go with the all bit again, so let me repeat myself.

Of the handful of Indian members who post regularly, there is a sizeable percentage who post anti-muslim vitriole. If this percentage is representative of Indians at large, then it translates into a serious case of Islamophobia.

I understand your point sir. However my only submission is that given the nature of this forum, where every thread degenerates in to an India vs Pakistan match at the speed of light, such caustic comments have a high probability of being found aplenty. There is similary no shortage anti Hindu virtiole as well. So from a statistics pov i think (or hope) that this sample of Indian and Pakistani members is not a fair representation of the respective countries. And hence my point..

 

[GentlemanObserver]

There you go with the all bit again, so let me repeat myself.

Of the handful of Indian members who post regularly, there is a sizeable percentage who post anti-muslim vitriole. If this percentage is representative of Indians at large, then it translates into a serious case of Islamophobia.

This, been surfing the forums since 2008 and i must say that the number of nonsensical posts coming from Indians far outweighs the Pakistani members here.

 

[muse]

Every thread on the forum is littered with Indians defaming and demaning Islam, conflating Islam and terror and it seems to me that the admin are very confused - freedom of express is not freedom to defame, to malign, to demean - this must be stopped.

 

[True_Pakistan_Zindabad]

Every thread on the forum is littered with Indians defaming and demaning Islam, conflating Islam and terror and it seems to me that the admin are very confused - freedom of express is not freedom to defame, to malign, to demean - this must be stopped.

Very very true. Not only from Indians either. It seems that many other non-Muslim members are here to slander Pakistanis for their religion fabricated on top of baseless, stupid claims and accusations that only fit their narrow agendas and do harm to and splinter this forum.

 

[muse]

We have expressed deep concern at the developed of attitudes and political positions in the US that have the effect, intended we believe, of creating serious divides within the fabric of the US - we caution against this development - we are not alone, below is a piece from the Atlantic Council:


When Is Anti-Extremism Anti-Islamic? The View from Europe (and America)
05 Aug 2010 08:14 AM PDT

France’s decision to ban full Islamic veil-wearing in public stirred up accusations of anti-Muslim bias. Ongoing controversies in the Netherlands and here in the U.S. show the complexity of balancing religious tolerance and opposing the more radical elements of Islam.

At the center of the controversy in Europe is Geert Wilders, leaders of the Freedom party in the Netherlands. While he regularly stands up for gay and women's rights he is best known, locally and internationally, for his “firebrand anti-Islam rhetoric that has led to him being charged under Dutch anti-hate speech laws and banned from visiting Britain until a court there ordered that he be allowed into the country.” Wilders has called Islam a “fascist” religion, and has won increasing support in the Netherlands in recent years even while receiving round-the-clock protection because of death threats.

Despite his outspoken stance on Islam, which has been described as hate-mongering in Europe and elsewhere, Wilders’ Freedom party won the biggest gains in a national election in June. The party will be the third-largest in parliament, with 24 seats out of 150, up from the nine before the election.

The latest scenario being discussed in Amsterdam is for the Liberal party, which has the most seats after June’s elections but not a majority, to form a coalition government with second-place Christian Democrats as well as Wilders’ Freedom party. Support of the Freedom party is considered critical for Liberals to successfully institute key financial and immigration reforms.

Wilders has called for Moroccan and Turkish immigrants to leave the country, and a €1,000 tax on women wearing head scarves. While the Freedom party will likely be involved in the coalition government, Financial Times (in an editorial) strikes a tone of relief in claiming “the concessions made to the PVV [Freedom party] are likely to fall well short of the misguided and oppressive policies espoused by the party’s controversial leader.”

Additionally, Wilders plans to expand the reaches of his movement beyond the Netherlands. He announced an intention to form an international alliance, initially in the U.S., Canada, Britain, France, and Germany, to spread his party’s message. “The message, 'stop Islam, defend freedom', is a message that's not only important for the Netherlands but for the whole free Western world,” Wilders told Dutch parliament.

On this side of the Atlantic, notable opposition has arisen to a plan to build an Islamic mosque and community center near the former World Trade Center site in Manhattan. Even the Anti-Defamation League is asking the center be installed farther away from the site of the 9/11 attacks: “Building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain - unnecessarily - and that is not right.” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, among others, has supported building of the center, which would be open to use by those of all religions.

Feisal Abdul Rauf, chairman of the Cordoba Initiative, which would operate the Islamic community center, fired back with a statement of his own:

We are not the extremists. We are that vast majority of Muslims who stand up against extremism and provide a voice in response to the radical rhetoric. Our mission is to interweave America's Muslim population into mainstream society. We are a Muslim-American force for promoting the universal values of justice and peaceful coexistence in which all good people believe. What has grieved me most over the past few months is the blatantly false reporting that has led some victims' families to think that this project is somehow designed by Muslims to gloat over the attacks on 9/11. That could not be farther from the truth.

Treatment of Muslims in Europe and North America remains a taut and contentious issue. While certain of Wilders’ claims border on the absurd the amount of support he holds, visibly indicated in Freedom party’s parliamentary gains, is disturbing and needs to be taken seriously. And thanks to the mosque controversy, Americans cannot claim that such ethnic-based fervor is limited to Europe, or even limited to Muslims: as the much-maligned Arizona immigration law shows, the actions of a subset of any ethnic group can easily lead to unjust treatment of the entire group. Focus of Western governments must be put on standing up to and eliminating this kind of behavior, lest we turn into the hate-fostering extremists we profess to be fighting.

Extremists and those who preach violence need to be stopped, but blanket and unsubstantiated racism in response to extremism cannot be tolerated. Finding this balance is a challenge that continues to elude those supposedly seeking freedom and justice for the whole world.

Scott Bleiweis is an intern with The Atlantic Council editorial office. He is currently pursuing a masters degree in International Studies with the Korbel School of International Studies at the University of Denver

 

[Tang0]

The distinction is only one of method, the root of both however is to use violence to further political objectives, and to spill the blood of the 'other' if necessary.

Not really, riots happen for many reasons, sometimes no reason at all that can be told, and are usually a reaction to current events or environment. They are a function of population density and class stratification. Terrorism is premeditated violence to instill fear, which in turn brings about change in government policy or social order. It happens regardless of population density, even in fairly egalitarian situations. A riot needs no goal.
It is like comparing hurricanes and car wrecks.....They are both terrible, and do damage, but the mechanisms and reasons are unrelated.
Now, intentional, directed riots inspired by political leaders are a different matter...