What's new

‘I’m Frightened’: backlash after Paris attack

Is US conspiring to destroy them? And we all thought US was helping out the democratic forces.

Its US thats supporting Anti Assad forces along with the thanksgiving Turkey. Hence, if people are displaced by virtue of this generous support, one can't really hold pakistan responsible.

I didn't say anything about the US and its claim to be pro-democracy. I simply asked you if you believe that these people should become citizens of the country you apparently think is out to do them harm. Yes or no?
 
.
I didn't say anything about the US and its claim to be pro-democracy. I simply asked you if you believe that these people should become citizens of the country you apparently think is out to do them harm. Yes or no?

I am not a syrian refugee, nor an american policy maker. Do the syrian refugees think US is out to destroy them? Does the US think the Syrian refugees feel this way as well?

As a lowly expat and a viewer, IMO, this decision to let people in lies with the american people. If you let them in, make sure rigorous checks are performed, if you dont want them, kindly ask the US to halt interference in that country and ask its gang of turkeys to do the same. Its only fair.
 
.
Do you disagree with the basic claim being made?

Why not drop these people in Pakistan?

We played host to refugees since 1987:
tbrDhX1.png
 
.
I am not a syrian refugee, nor an american policy maker. Do the syrian refugees think US is out to destroy them? Does the US think the Syrian refugees feel this way as well?

As a lowly expat and a viewer, IMO, this decision to let people in lies with the american people. If you let them in, make sure rigorous checks are performed, if you dont want them, kindly ask the US to halt interference in that country and ask its gang of turkeys to do the same. Its only fair.

Most Americans believe that the Syrians are victims of nothing but the violence that they themselves are responsible for, and that they will bring this violence with them wherever they go. We think that the whole business of wanting to live in countries one hates is unique to the Islamic world, and it's why we don't give a damn about these people or what happens to them.
 
.
Most Americans believe that the Syrians are victims of nothing but the violence that they themselves are responsible for, and that they will bring this violence with them wherever they go. We think that the whole business of wanting to live in countries one hates is unique to the Islamic world, and it's why we don't give a damn about these people or what happens to them.

Great, but ask your govt to do the same. leave them alone and stop supporting rebels there. Let syrians fight amongst themselves, and stay far away.
 
.
We played host to refugees since 1987:

Afghans and "internally displaced people" (neighbor-on-neighbor violence in regions within Pakistani domain, which de facto includes Afghanistan) are not comparable to the West and other countries being the Good Samaritan and taking in people from far away. Fwiw, Lebanon is about 5% the size and population of Pakistan yet has taken on about that same number of refugees from conflicts it had no hand in until they brought the violence to them.

Great, but ask your govt to do the same. leave them alone and stop supporting rebels there. Let syrians fight amongst themselves, and stay far away.

So you won't commit yourself to saying whether you think these people should become American citizens (although you yourself live in Canada) but you're content to blame the US for the fratricidal Islamic violence that occurs even when it isn't involved (Sudan, Yemen, Hama massacre).

Let's go back to the OP... why do most Westerners blame Islam and not individuals for the attacks? Could it have something to do with your "bite the hand which feeds" attitude towards the US and the West?
 
.
Afghans and "internally displaced people" (neighbor-on-neighbor violence in regions within Pakistani domain) are not comparable to the West and other countries being the Good Samaritan and taking in people from far away. Fwiw, Lebanon is about 5% the size and population of Pakistan yet has taken on about that same number of refugees from conflicts it had no hand in until they brought the violence to them.

Lol, spin me another yarn. Do you understand what refugee means so should i get you a dictionary. Neighbour or not, a refugee is a refugee... Stop playing semantic with me, because it's a game you cannot win. Neighbour-on-nighbour violence? Hang on a moment, are you saying we "invaded" Afghanistan?

Gosh, looks like you must have bumped your head, go get some rest. Don't quote Lebanon to me, are you conveniently missing out what happened in 1982 and 2006? Or is that not "neighbour-on-neighbour" violence. Gosh!!!
 
.
Lol, spin me another yarn. Do you understand what refugee means so should i get you a dictionary. Neighbour or not, a refugee is a refugee... Stop playing semantic with me, because it's a game you cannot win. Neighbour-on-nighbour violence? Hang on a moment, are you saying we "invaded" Afghanistan?

You can't deny that the Pakistani military and ISI have been doing whatever they please in a country with no statutory power for decades now.

Yes, being a neighbor or not makes a difference. If my neighbor's house burns down, or I torched his lawn, it's my moral or legal responsibility to give him shelter. Are Mexicans emigrating to Pakistan? How many would take a free plane ticket if they were offered one?

If some guy from the other side of the world knocks on my door, that's entirely another matter. The West takes in tens of thousands of refugees from Sudan, Fakestine, and other countries we have no common history with, because it's our way to do so and because the people in question want to be part of our superior society. Pakistan does not; that's simply a fact.

Gosh, looks like you must have bumped your head, go get some rest. Don't quote Lebanon to me, are you conveniently missing out what happened in 1982 and 2006? Or is that not "neighbour-on-neighbour" violence. Gosh!!!

Lebanon didn't start the war. But they still wound up with millions of angry Sunnis inside their borders - more refugees than Pakistan in a country a tiny fraction the size and population.

Believe whatever else you like, but those are the basic facts.
 
.
Afghans and "internally displaced people" (neighbor-on-neighbor violence in regions within Pakistani domain, which de facto includes Afghanistan) are not comparable to the West and other countries being the Good Samaritan and taking in people from far away. Fwiw, Lebanon is about 5% the size and population of Pakistan yet has taken on about that same number of refugees from conflicts it had no hand in until they brought the violence to them.



So you won't commit yourself to saying whether you think these people should become American citizens (although you yourself live in Canada) but you're content to blame the US for the fratricidal Islamic violence that occurs even when it isn't involved (Sudan, Yemen, Hama massacre).

Let's go back to the OP... why do most Westerners blame Islam and not individuals for the attacks? Could it have something to do with your "bite the hand which feeds" attitude towards the US and the West?


Well sir, as I said, its you and your govt that must decide. Not anyone else. And no, I m not one of those fan boys , who blame the US and the west for everything.

Out of 57 muslim countries about 53 are solidly allied to US. Personally, I blame these countries for blindly following an imperial empire. They should have maintained a balanced policy. History would be different.

Instead of being gas stations for the US military machine, they should have a more balanced outlook.
 
.
Well sir, as I said, its you and your govt that must decide. Not anyone else. And no, I m not one of those fan boys , who blame the US and the west for everything. Out of 57 muslim countries about 53 are solidly allied to US. Personally, I blame these countries for blindly following an imperial empire. They should have maintained a balanced policy. History would be different. Instead of being gas stations for the US military machine, they should have a more balanced outlook.

They do that for the same reason their citizens live in the West. Whether it's an individual or an entire nation, one must make his own bread or bend his knee to the man who bakes it for him. All these topics inevitably come back to issues entirely internal to the Islamic world that have nothing to do with the West.
 
.
They do that for the same reason their citizens live in the West. Whether it's an individual or an entire nation, one must make his own bread or bend his knee to the man who bakes it for him. All these topics inevitably come back to issues entirely internal to the Islamic world that have nothing to do with the West.

Denial is a disease. Most of the rich muslim nations invest in US corporations. Buy weapons and basically give countless pay checks to americans. The analogy of bread being baked might be the other way around.

The oil embargo in the 70s, if it were to happen again, would you accept it? We all remember how a coup in iran was planned. So lets not go there.
 
.
Muslims are not terrorist, there may be angry folks who happened to commit crimes but these are just crimes like committed by other criminals
 
.
While I do agree that such incidents shouldn't happen, but I also surely hope that having lived in the West and learned such nice terms like bigotry, you make a point of raising awareness levels when you go back home during holidays. Most Islamic countries need serious education on how to treat minorities. Wouldn't be very fair if the remaining world was purged of bigotry and it only thrived in the Islamic world, would it?

Sure, I find weird you assume that I've never taken up that issue among ignorant Pakistanis. I have posts on this very forum where I've spoken out for minorities, religious sects, other religions or ethnic. Some other members may have seen them.

Again. .completely valid points ...but lets assume you raise objections in a muslim country or call for transformation or call for a reform of Islamic practises (which one would correctly assume is quite essential) you would be named heretic, blasphemous and end up being punished...so there is very very little scope for reformation or change.

As you pointed out in your last para and what I reiterated - you understood tolerance, secularism and liberalism in a non muslim environment...wouldn't have been possible in a muslim country..because Islam doesn't have that space...even if it does limitedly..It does out of obligation to exist with the non muslim world.

Islamic violence for the whole part is currently war with hundreds getting killed daily at the moment...compared to other extreme religious right wingers being more rhetorical or ideological or islamophobic with some hints of violence...not to the grand scale and level thats happening in Islamic sectarianism.

And..many others don't understand it..

Other religious transformations happened because of the protests and activations by the people from the same religious group.

Islam doesn't offer that bandwidth for liberal or forward thinking Muslims to change their leaders or preachers or bring in modernisation or reform, because opposition to change is also inbuilt.

People are confused and bewildered..and I for one don't fault them for heir lack of understanding.

This is an odd topic. You're partly right, but take the US for example, if you asked most Christian Americans whether they support the laws of the Bible many would say yes, or simply ask them if they follow the Bible. Does that mean that they would support the punishments of the Bible and judgement systems to be made into law in their country? Nope.
There are many laws of the Bible plenty of Christians chose to ignore. No reform came about as such, only liberalism in wider society, democracy and civil liberties, entirely political changes.

Now if you were to declare that the laws of the Bible ought to be changed or Christianity reformed, no doubt people will call you a heretic and all sorts.

It's similar with Islam. Only it is worse on our side because of the higher numbers of extremists and literalists. We also aren't nearly as developed as even the US, nor as liberal, the US has had some 200+ years of steady evolution, expansion of civil rights, economic development, education and their own societal enlightenment. We Muslim nations are hardly half a century past Colonial rule, we still suffer from sectarian conflicts as a result of the colonial mess, we've had non-stop war, and hardly any economic development, no enlightenment.

So, reforming Islam is not the issue here. Take Afghanistan for example, it was 10 years of occupation, total near 100% brain drain, all politicians, lawyers, doctors, teachers, cultured intellectuals fled, entire generations grew up without any education or opportunities in a war environment. Then came the radicalisation through various means, some of it foreign and through Pakistan, the US, Saudi Arabia.

My point is, the lack of room for reform of Islam, did not cause the Taliban, hell on earth caused by politics left them vulnerable to this sort of thing, and all it took was a bit of sustained effort by some powers to make use of that situation in radicalising the country. Again, political circumstances we're talking about here, not Islam. In fact, I would be so bold to say that had Christianity have been in place of Islam in Afghanistan in 1979, we would see the Christian taliban today, if all political factors remained unchanged ceteris paribus.


They do that for the same reason their citizens live in the West. Whether it's an individual or an entire nation, one must make his own bread or bend his knee to the man who bakes it for him. All these topics inevitably come back to issues entirely internal to the Islamic world that have nothing to do with the West.

Please tell us what planet you've been living on these last 30-40 years, clearly signals from earth are hard to come by up there?
 
.
Do you disagree with the basic claim being made?

Why not drop these people in Pakistan?

Simple answer:
  1. We did not cause the mess in Syria, and aren't involved in it. You however, are involved and partly to blame.
  2. We are a poor nation, we do not have the resources as it is to cope with refugees. You however, have money enough to bomb the place, and spend billions on that, why not take some of the refugees in?
  3. We already have had millions of Afghan refugees in our country since the 80's, even to this day we have millions more than any European nation. We also have internally displaced persons, Pakistanis, resulting from our own war.
Well, there you have it.
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom