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

[zebra24]

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

Comments

[turkleblot]

What good would it do? If anything changes it will have to come from within. There is not nearly enough outrage from moderate Muslims over the behavior of the extremists. When most Muslims talk about peace around the dinner table, but radical Muslims talk about war in the streets, who do you think will win the argument?

[htpcl]

Again, I reiterate this and tell you goodbye. You flounced twice. And yet you keep coming back, first posing as a woman from UK, now as who-knows-what from China, but in both cases actually still being in Baghdad. Please don't make a mockery of yourself and just stay on FB, like you initially intended. You shut the door yourself, and quite spectacularly; it's pointless to sneak in trough the window.

[zebra24]

As you mentioned nonacceptance of violence must come from within Muslim community.

And this is pure showcase for them that they have no choice - they have to fight Muslim extremists now and openly and with free-world support or agree with extremists and help them to commit a bloodshed.

And free-world should help them in their fight against violence, not silently accept the violence.

No real choice left for moderate Muslims - they are forced to choose one side.
When they will - "provocateurs" won't matter at all anymore.
Provocateur deed will be flushed into toiled by history.

[turkieblot]

Well that's the thing, so far as I can see. Right now the Muslim community has no real option for people who might disagree with the radical extremists. You have a problem of appalling ignorance, poverty, and illiteracy. We are all products of out environment but some of us are fortunate enough to be brought up in an environment where questioning authority is good, where critical inquiry is admired, and where liberal values such as freedom of speech are admired even by the masses. How do you think things will end up when you are raised from birth with an Imam telling how the world is, what is good and bad, and who the enemy is? I believe that the difference between east and west is that in the west religion simply isn't as important as it once was. You want to know what fundamentalist Christianity looked like in the middle ages? Simply look at radical Islam today. It will take a cultural change that I think is starting to happen, but very slowly, and only in certain places. Until then you can count on the messengers of ignorance

[underlankers]

A succinct summation of this mentality from the first time it was stated:

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half-devil and half-child.

Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
The end for others sought,
Watch sloth and heathen Folly
Bring all your hopes to nought.

[underlankers]

Your claim is that all Muslims support these movements and that Islam has totalitarian power in the Middle East in particular. First of all, the greatest population of Muslims in the world lives in India, and the largest Muslim state by sheer space is Indonesia. Second of all, violent mobs invariably try to intimidate people who disagree with them. It's inherent to that mob psychology thing

[notmrgarrison]

Your claim is that all Muslims support these movements and that Islam has totalitarian power in the Middle East in particular.

In this OP he claimed that?

[underlankers]

"How long western world can ignore Muslim totalitarian ideology in Middle East?"

"Seems like almost nobody in media have the guts now to blame Muslim extremists for violence.
But everybody in public is "brave" enough to blame "provocateurs".
They are too coward to say a word in defense of freedom of speech and in defense of people oppressed by Muslim extremists over the world."

The reality is that Muslim extremists are just an example of nasty-not-nice people opposing already unpleasant and repressive regimes. Like the Bolsheviks v. the anti-Semitic, repressive, proudly medieval Tsarist regime.

[eracerhead]

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.

[notmrgarrison]

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.

[eracerhead]

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.

[kylinrouge]

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.

[rick_day]

maybe it's because....there WERE provocateurs?

I know you really REALLY REALLY want others to hop on the Haterwagon, but until I have facts, this is just another day in a dangerous world.

To me, the more dangerous terrorism is one of fomenting blame to one religious/ethnic group of people for problems we caused ourselves.

[underlankers]

What problems did we cause ourselves in Libya that would lead to those people attacking our embassy there? That, BTW, would qualify as a casus belli under most concepts of International law. An embassy is legally the sovereign territory of whatever country uses it.

[rick_day]

Well, I'm going back a bit to colonialism and oil and other such US stuff....

typical empirical meddling, etc...

[underlankers]

Again, when did we ever do this in Libya? Italy did a lot of that stuff there, we did not. If colonialism was a factor it should have been directed at the Italian embassy, not ours. Especially since Italy participated in the Civil War NATO coalition. The last war we had with Libya was in the 1800s. Literally in the 1800-1810 timeframe. And it wasn't even Libya, then, it was the Dey of Tripoli.

[marina_herriott]

/what was the leaders reaction?/

It seems that Obama doesn’t want to admit his foreign-policy mistakes.

[dwer]

seriously? That the president of the US didn't happen to respond publicly about a single pakistani citizen getting threatened by a mob is NOT a foreign policy mistake.

[marina_herriott]

/a single pakistani citizen getting threatened by a mob is NOT a foreign policy mistake/

"The deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi had been a "spontaneous" act" - It's not true. It means Obama has foreign policy mistakes.

[dwer]

So a terrorist group plans to attack the Consulate, and uses the movie as a cover. That's Obama's fault is it?