Pakistani businessman's life in threat after he refused to join anti-western mob

Sep 20, 2012 00:26

Haji Nasrullah Khan - was threatened by angry mob, after he refused to close his shops and join aggressive mob to blame western countries for freedom of speech ( Read more... )

pakistan, extremism

Leave a comment

eracerhead September 20 2012, 12:01:22 UTC
1) We don't know what Obama is doing about this situation and we won't until something happens. That is by intention due to concerns of national security.

2) Just about everyone in the US has made statements defending free speech.

3) Right, the president is just casting [truthful] aspersions on Romney because, well he can only do one thing at a time. Jeesh.

Reply

notmrgarrison September 20 2012, 12:25:12 UTC
Just about everyone in the US has made statements defending free speech.

Has the administration? They didn't at first, I haven't really followed it since. I'd be happy to read a quote from the President or Secretary of State.

Reply

eracerhead September 20 2012, 13:13:48 UTC
We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Written before-the-fact in diplomatic-speak to a culture that does not fully understand free speech. When the barbarians are at the gate, there isn't time for a learning experience. If the State Department said "It's free speech, go fuck yourselves," it would have forced the hand of foreign politicians to work against us. Instead they have to temper their statements to the intended audience. People who don't understand the needs of diplomacy tend to expect the US to use a sledgehammer wherever we go, but that is largely counter-productive.

Reply

kylinrouge September 20 2012, 14:53:01 UTC
And when the US doesn't use a sledgehammer, the hawks in the country accuse it of being weak and apologetic. Apparently it's better to beat your chest and put actual American lives at risk abroad.

Reply

notmrgarrison September 20 2012, 15:23:33 UTC
Defending freedom of speech is a sledgehammer?

(the above quote barely does that)

Reply

kylinrouge September 20 2012, 18:31:17 UTC
Exactly what would have appeased you?

Reply

underlankers September 20 2012, 18:37:31 UTC
I believe he meant the sledgehammer in the sense of sending the bombers to inaugurate Operation Rolling Thunder II: Electric Boogaloo.

Reply

telemann September 20 2012, 18:02:44 UTC
Google for it, if you're so worried about their (supposed lack) of statements.

Reply

zebra24 September 21 2012, 01:17:34 UTC
1. Let's clarify that: Obama won't tell to the bad guys they are bad, because of national security.
Summarize that: his policies led to state which is frightened by terrorists so much, even can't tell a truth loudly?

2. Not defending free speech, but offending free speech, as you cited, they are blamed those who using their right for free speech, not ones that kills people.
**We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.**

3. Obama is mostly liar, this is his way to avoid responsibility for his policies collapse.
That's why he want to blame Romney, not to take an actions not even say word against oppressors.

Reply

dwer September 21 2012, 02:35:45 UTC
Summarize that: his policies led to state which is frightened by terrorists so much, even can't tell a truth loudly?

Wat.

Reply

eracerhead September 21 2012, 13:56:56 UTC
1. No, he won't inflame the masses in order to make it easier for heads of state to cooperate ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up