Deliberate misconstruing of my post to score a cheap point? I expected better. The objection to your reference to Premji as Muslim while not opposed by me had the point that his religion had nothing to do with the subject under discussion, it is however germane in the quote used by Friedman. Friedman as I am sure you have read was referring to a generalised absence of the participation of Indian Muslims in terror strikes against the west. Therefore the reference to religion has a context whether you agree with him or not. I am not labeling anyone "muslim" to score a point and I am beginning to see "how it works" with you. A very unnecessary attempt at a cheap shot.
Whether the comparison was between 'Indian Muslims' or 'Indian Hindus' and Pakistanis, the comparison itself remains a derogatory and unsubstantiated, generalization meant to vilify a large majority of Pakistanis.
Its like arguing that saying something derogatory about Blacks is alright because 'I have a Black friend and he agrees with me and therefore I am not racist'.
The 'cheap shot' here was entirely Friedman's, and that you choose to justify it by coming up with convoluted excuses about 'what he actually meant' reflects very poorly upon you and some of the other Indians who have shown support for his racist comments on this thread. Of course this Indian attitude of supporting morally indefensible positions is beginning to appear 'par for the course' given the vocal support for the most recent Israeli atrocities against unarmed civilian aid workers in international waters..
And that is the company that you want to keep?
Just pointing out the discrepancy in coverage when it comes to Pakistan - and then hatemongers like Sadanand Dhume will latch on to Pakistan's actions specifically, ignoring the rest of the Muslim world, to paint solely Pakistan as having some sort of issue,
Unfortunately not. It is not just the actions of a few, it's the support that organs of the state have given them. Many Pakistanis talk about the WoT as having started when the Americans came into Afghanistan.
It did start when the Americans came into Afghanistan. The Taliban were not involved in terrorist attacks till that point, and it was the flawed US operation in uprooting the Taliban and allowing them to escape into Pakistan that ended up creating a problem in the Pakistan tribal belt as well.
The Pakistani State and its organs never supported terrorist groups or terrorism, and there remains no evidence to support that ludicrous contention.
Was it okay when terrorists were using Pakistani soil to plan & execute operations against other countries just as long as they didn't do operations within Pakistan?
Strawman, not to mention a blatant attempt to hijack the thread by dragging the discussion into terrorism and the same old 'Pakistan support for terrorism argument' - no one has argued that 'it was OK for terrorists to plan and execute operations against other nations from Pakistani soil'. The GoP acted as much as it could within the constraints it faced to address concerns by the US, as well as India, but given the plethora of terrorist attacks against Pakistan in a matter of two years, that far outnumber the attacks in the West or India, it is obvious that the State cannot prevent every attack, and work against terrorist organizations is a long term process.
A lot of people take perverse pleasure in showing the middle finger to India with regard to the case against Hafiz Saeed. This has to do with the belief that LeT & JuD are organisations that don't operate internally against the Pakistani state & are committed to attacking only India.
There is no 'perverse pleaseure' in pointing out the fact that there is no evidence against the JuD and Hafiz Saeed, at this point, implicating him in the Mumbai attacks or terrorism. Now you may wish to distort the issue whichever way you like to vent your dismay over the verdict not going India's way, but the fact remains that there was no evidence to convict.
Other than the fact that these organisations have attempted to attack western targets(Headley-Denmark), the thinking is incredibly naive. Even if the leadership actually made that distinction, do you really think the foot soldiers care or are so disciplined as to follow that? How do you know that they would not join the Punjabi Taliban or whatever else is the flavour of the month and not conduct actions within Pakistan? How do you know that they have not done so already? When Pakistan starts to crack down on all terrorism, you could claim a start at a new beginning. Untill then, I am afraid that the ring road would only be covered in the event of a terrorist strike occurring along it.
Another strawman!
What thinking is naive? So far it has been basically you going on an off topic rant over one line posted by TL, that these individuals are an extremely small minority. You haven't in any way shown how TL's point was incorrect, not have you in any way been able to justify Friedman's racist comment.
It is possible that there are great big roads in North Korea & I know of atleast one in Zimbabwe. Do you think we will hear of them anytime soon? Your love for Pakistan is blinding you from seeing what the rest of the world does. Two threads on this forum are a reflection on the turmoil within. One, the attack on the Ahmedis in Lahore & the second, Israel's attack on the ship carrying aid. Every Pakistani member was quick & unanimous in condemning the Israeli action refusing to give Israeli actions the benefit of a single sliver of doubt. The same people however spent days discussing whether Ahmedis are muslims or whether the prayer hall could be called a mosque and those who died in Lahore were your fellow countrymen. Quite a few went after the "liberals" calling them all sort of names.
You,Sir, have a bigger problem than you are willing to admit.
But the Pakistan is neither North Korea nor Zimbabwe, so your analogy makes no sensed, though it does reflect the extent of misinformation and the limitations of Indian views on Pakistan that you would have to stoop to such a comparison.
The thread on Ahmedis went the direction it did because the theological issue is an emotional one, not because those (most of them at least) raising issues related to the nomenclature used and the status of Ahmedis condoned the violence against them. No one (aside from one or maybe two Taliban sympathisers) gave them the attackers of the Ahmadi mosques 'the benefit of the doubt'. The terrorism was condemned, but religious emotion over the theological issue took center stage, admittedly through a decision by yours truly to take a provocative stance in changing the title of the thread.
The problem related to the status of Ahmadis is a large one, but it is also a problem distinct from the issue of terrorism and the efforts needed to crackdown on it.
But since we are talking about 'poisonous mindsets', let me remind you of the comments by Indians on some of the largest mainstream Indian media outlets such as the Times of India and Hindustan Times - blatant reveling in the deaths of innocents, and the violence in Pakistan, by hundreds of posters. And not just in this case, but almost in every instance of a major terrorist attack in Pakistan the response by Indians on major Indian outlets and forums, and even in the comments sections of Western media outlets such as the WaPO, NYT and WSJ, has been identical.
I know that the HT and ToI screen comments before posting them, since I have posted a couple here and there, and yet such vile bile from Indian posters is allowed to be posted on their websites. Says a lot about the editorial mindset in mainstream Indian media as well.
)
