When a white “terrorist” is awarded a privilege 1.8 billion Muslims are denied

Published: November 11, 2017
SHARES
Email

When the attacker is white, he's labelled "unstable" to sidetrack from calling the shooter what he truly is – a terrorist. PHOTO: FOUL EXPRESS/MUSLIM SHOW

If the world can largely agree on one thing, it is the need to defeat terrorism. However, the frequency of unity seen when condemning terror does not echo beyond that, for every state of the world is employing its own methods (or lack thereof) of tackling this daunting, multi-faceted predicament, and hence achieving varying degrees of success.

The first and probably most pivotal step in the fight against terrorism is to clearly define what constitutes as terror and who is actually a terrorist. Failure to reach a singular consensus on this starting point will invariably lead to utter confusion amongst the public, something that would further embolden the extremists, and provide a vacuum to take advantage of. Similarly, nothing hurts a nation’s fight against terrorism more than selective hypocrisy when deciding whom to label a terrorist and whom to call a lone-wolf.

Take Pakistan, for example. Initially, after 9/11, we were failing miserably in the war against terror, a war we had imported from Afghanistan. The main reason, amongst others, was that our society was divided about the very problem it was trying to confront. The fault lines were drawn, with a substantive chunk of the population sincerely believing that fighting them should be the very last resort, and instead we would be better off seeking dialogue and negotiation with the terrorists, in order to reach an amicable consensus and coexist peacefully with them.

The other drawback in Pakistan’s approach was that our people were confused between misguided notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ terrorists. Unfortunately, all the main players in this fight – the politicians, the military, the media, as well as the theologians – were to blame for muddling the waters and creating this bipolarity in the minds of the citizens. The lack of strong leadership and a confused and scared populace both led to a loud, evasive silence, which ultimately fanned the flames for this plague to spread all over the country. Had we unequivocally and unanimously spoken out against this from day one, we would possibly have been successful in nipping it in the bud.

Nevertheless, there is no point in crying over spilled milk, though woefully, what was spilled was the blood of thousands of innocent Pakistani men, women and children.

The moment we, as a nation, categorically decided to treat all terrorists as the same – irrespective of their backgrounds, motivations or justifications – we won the psychological fight. The clouds of guilt and confusion felt earlier were now replaced with a clear understanding of what was to be done moving forward. Granted, even now we are not entirely safe, but we are the only nation in the world that has successfully destroyed the network of the terrorists from our soil.

The United States initiated this war on terror, but from day one, its policies against terrorism have reeked of hypocrisy. First, the US refused to accept its share of the blame for this universal conundrum, and betrayed the world, and its own people, by pointing fingers elsewhere. During the cold war, the US, along with Ziaul Haq, had deliberately inculcated the youth of Afghanistan and Pakistan with the doctrine of jihad and created the ‘mujahideen’, calling them saviours against communism. America trained them, equipped them with weapons and financed them, and then once the war was over, they left the region without even looking back to see the mess they had created. The foundation for the Taliban was thus laid by the US.

In the same vein, when the US, along with its western allies, invaded Iraq on the pretext of destroying weapons of mass destruction, it ultimately set the foundation for the creation of the Islamic State (IS). How can one sovereign state invade another without good reason, and then simply say sorry and act as if nothing happened? Could the US be so naive as to think that there would be no consequences for its illegal and unlawful actions? The IS was the “gift” from America to the world – a consequence of the Iraq war.

“How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?” – Howard Zinn

Another indicator of America’s double standards is revealed in how it deals with domestic terrorism. The events of the last few months alone suffice to prove this point. It seems that whenever a ‘Muslim’ commits an act of terror, certain segments in America immediately jump on the bandwagon of Islamophobia and start blaming all the followers of Islam, equating Islam with terrorism and Muslims with being terrorists. It is unfortunate that despite being the leader of the free world, the US president is the first to act in this extremely hypocritical and vile manner.

Hypocritical, because when the attacker turns out to be white, which has happened quite often as of late, the reaction of that same group of people is completely the opposite. Now they start calling for “thoughts and prayers”, and the need to stick together and be united. They urge others who try to highlight their hypocrisy to stop “politicising” the incident and take the time to “heal”. Where is this wonderful advice when the act of terror is not committed by a white man? Why is it that in those cases their thoughts and prayers turn into Muslim bans?

In the last month, there have been two incidents that have highlighted these double standards. In New York, when an Uzbek man ploughed his car onto pedestrians, Trump was quick to denounce it as terrorism, and his right-wing, racist supporters soon followed suit with tirades against Islam. However, on November 5th, when a white man carried out a shooting in a church, killing at least 26 people and causing the largest mass shooting in Texas’s history, not once did Trump use the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” when denouncing the man’s actions. He has called the culprit mentally unstable and other fancy innuendos to side-track from calling the shooter what he truly is – a terrorist who killed innocent people in a place of worship!

This similar criminal and immoral fumbling of the US president was also witnessed when the deadliest shooting ever in America was deemed to be horrible enough to be labelled a terrorist attack. The whole world was shocked and disgusted at America’s leadership and what is very clearly a discriminatory and racist perspective on something as black and white as terrorism.

If America is indeed serious in its efforts to fight terror, it should take heed from Pakistan’s example and realise that a nation divided cannot win an ideological war of this magnitude. And to achieve this unison amongst its people, America has to shun its hypocritical approach towards terrorism, both internationally and nationally. Only then may it actually win the war on terror it has dragged us all into.

Usman Ali Virk

Usman Ali Virk

The author hails from Lahore and is a lawyer by profession. He recently graduated with a Masters in Law from the University of California, Berkeley.

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of The Express Tribune.

  • 19640909rk .

    In fact violence from Muslims are swept under the carpet in the west. There have been too many cases of violence by Muslims in west. If it was some other community. there would have been ban on those religions. Because Muslims fight for unjust privileges (and white people are idiotic to grant them) in a rabid way, people grant them what they ask.Recommend

  • Patwari

    Big Yellow got elected as POTUS because majority of Americans
    were “asleep at the wheel”. They woke up the next morning and
    went into a head grabbing choking frenzied, epileptic fit.
    Everyone walking around in a slacked jawed trance, with one
    identical mantra, ‘ this is unbelievable, how did this happen?’
    Bernie Sanders, knowing he had no chance at winning, still
    inserted himself in the campaign, and divided the house.
    Poor, bald, 100 year old man…grandpa?…Buddha Jr.?
    Clone of Hummurabi?…following an impossible dream.
    Not to mention that the Russians helped Big Yellow, in spades
    and bushels. But not to worry, help is on the way.
    As they say, relax, looks like the walls are closing in on Big Yellow.
    Not to mention that he is helping, by sawing off the branch he is sitting on !Recommend

  • Patwari

    Say, Modi Sarkar, allowed the butchering and murder
    of more than 2000 Muslims in Gujrat, Hindustan.
    Currently they are hanging Muslims under Gau Raksha,
    from holy trees, peepul trees, neem trees, lamp posts,
    road signs, doorways, ceiling fans, coconut trees, banyan,…
    Seems like Hindus are very violent people when it comes
    to Hindutva ideology and Muslims. Actually it’s religious
    extremism.of the Hitler kind….meted out to Jewish kind.
    Hindus have 2 billion strong Hindu Desh to carry out their
    atrocities. And hide it from the rest of the world, easily.
    Your new master, Big Yellow will be happy to give you a
    ‘green card’. All you have to do is ask.Recommend

  • HZR

    Hindus are violent? Thank muslims and rhe mullahs for this.Recommend

  • Mustafa

    When a Christian killing people of other faiths in order to spread chaos is the day you can call it terrorism. It’s not the act but the intent behind the act that dictates it’s classification. This is a fact missed by a lot of people on social media.Recommend

  • Genie

    Who is a Terrorist? Anyone and everyone called terrorist. Called by whom? The European terrorists. European terrorism is over 450 years old and still alive and calling others terrorist. European terrorist have had vacations in many parts of the world and still doing so.Recommend

  • numbersnumbers

    Too bad the author is so confined by his PC (politically correct) straight jacket to write this slated piece, confusing hate crimes and single wack job assaults with GROUP AND ORGANIZATION PLANNED/SUPPORTED terrorist attacks!

    Let’s list major terrorist attacks for comparison:
    Mumbai 26/11 by group of Muslim terrorist members of LeT.
    America 9/11 by group of Muslim terrorist members of Al Qaeda.
    London train and bus bombing by group of Muslim suicide bomber terrorists.
    Spanish train bombing by group of Muslim Al Qaeda terrorists.
    San Bernardino attack by pair of Muslim terrorists.
    Boston bombing by pair of Muslim terrorists.
    Russian Moscow theatre attack by group of Muslim terrorists.
    Paris terrorist attacks by groups of Muslim terrorist supporters.
    Nice terrorist truck attack by Muslim ISIS terrorist supporter.
    New York truck terrorist attack by Muslim ISIS supporter!

    Now,
    Las Vegas single shooter motivation is still unknown as investigation continues.
    Texas mass shooter had an extensive history of domestic violence which continued in this attack from information so far released.

    As for those 1.8 billion Muslims, why do the vast majority actively deny than Muslims were the perpetrators of those above listed major terrorist attacks?Recommend

  • Pounce

    The problem we have here is a perfect example of the ‘I can only be a victim’ cos I am a Muslim’ article which inflames idiots to carry out terrorist attack in the name of their region.
    1) White shooters, in the west usually are loners. As of yet, there isn’t a single example of groups of white men raiding a city machine guns blazing killing anybody who steps in front of them.
    2) Black shooters, in the UK where guns are banned, more blacks were killed by blacks between 2001 and 2011 than British soldiers in Afghanistan.
    3) Islamic shooters; hide behind their faith, in which to murder, they don’t care what colour you are, what religion you are or even what gender you are. Yet so many Muslims refuse to accept the fact that their own carried out the killings by saying
    “These people are not Muslims”
    Sorry they are, and until the Islamic world accepts that murder ,death, kill in engrained in their holy codex and that the only people who can stop these people is Muslims themselves, then nothing will change.
    Recommend

  • Pounce

    Oh please.Recommend

  • Parvez

    Your contention and correct me if I’m wrong, is that anyone who kills or harms 10 or 20 or more people should be branded as a terrorist. This is simplistic and wrong. In America ( because we are talking of America here ) the act of terrorism is defined by their laws. If a Muslim runs out of a mental institute and kills 20 people he will be branded as ‘ mentally unstable ‘ and NOT a terrorist ….. but sadly most acts of violence where Muslims are involved are motivated by factors that are described under American law as terrorist acts…….and thus they are branded as terrorists.
    Apparently the debate on this issue is an ongoing one but the law holds sway until it is changed.Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    What makes you accept that a criminal who kills civilians and children is a muslim? The perpators always have a nationality which they cannot deny. Besides there are no white or black terrorists either nor are the two billion muslims as victims which the author is trying to indicate in the article.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Patwari

    Sorry. But no. That’s false, what you are saying. 1.8 billion Muslims do
    not actively deny that radicalized Muslims were perpetrators.
    Please, do not ‘invent’ facts. To fit your agenda.
    You can claim that these attacks were perpetuated by individuals/groups
    who call themselves Muslims. These subscribe to their own violent virulent toxic interpretation of Islam. So YOU and people like you can hold 1.8 billion Muslims hostage because of a handful of murderous conniving thugs
    Such groups exist in every major religion. Even the Buddhists led by their
    monks are engaged in a Muslim genocide in Myanmar and Sri Lanka.
    The Catholics of Northern Ireland used to blow passenger buses in London.
    Known as the The Irish Republican Army. Until a peace treaty was signed.
    The radical extremist Jews of Israel murder and maim and kill unarmed civilian Muslims populations of Palestine with tanks, aircraft bombings, missiles and every conceivable modern weapon. Not all Jews. Just the radicalized extremists Jews led by the likes of Natanyahu. The Serbs of former Czech Republic had Muslim concentration camps. The Russian Army was on a murderous rampage in Muslim Checknya. Which tried to break away from the former USSR. Was not allowed. Just like Indian Kashmir.
    In Hindustan they have a radical extremist ideology perpetuated by
    Hindus of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh,, Vishwa Hindu Parishad, BJP
    and other extremist/terrorist parties and yogis. They are engage in murdering Muslims and other minorities. Their mission statement “Bharat is For Hindus Only” says a lot. Bharat is considered a Holy Hindu Land.
    In US the White Supremacists, The Aryan Nation, Alt Rights, Nazis, KKK etc, are engaged in bank robberies, drug dealing, extortion, and other nefarious activities to fund their agenda of killing and extermination of minorities including Hindus! to produce a Pure White Master Race.
    Sadly in your fervor to denounce and take revenge for 1200 years Muslim
    rule in Hindustan, …you will go and stoop to any length.Recommend

  • KlingOn2K

    In France, Muslims gather on the streets for prayers blocking all traffic and people. Do you have anything to say to that? Or is playing the victim more fun? Can you imagine members of any other religion doing it in a Muslim country? They’ll be blown to a million pieces.Recommend

  • Milind A

    That Pakistanis are incapable of objectivity, thinking and analysis is proven once again by this writeup. The writer fails to ask difficult questions
    1. Did the White male kill people in the name of (his Christian) religion as Muslim terrorists do?
    2. Did he select his victims (non Christians) before killing them as Muslim terrorists do?
    3. Did the remaining White/Christian majority cheer/support him openly or secretly or blame his acts on some external factors?
    4. Did the remaining White/Christian majority call for a religious (Christian state) / laws?
    5. A miniscule portion of Whites do support the Christian right, but there’s a sizeable/stronger secular movement opposing them. Do we see similar anti-Islamic right movement in the Muslim world?Recommend

  • Eddied

    a very confused writer who does not understand that radical Mulims killing people in the name of a twisted version of Islam…is not the same as a mentally deranged fool killing people at random?…only Muslims kill people for their religion…Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    In France, Muslims gather on the streets for prayers blocking all traffic and people. well

    The French State should provde more space for their citzens to practice their religion. In France farmers go on strike closing national road network includng motorways too and there is no law against it Remember millions of french gave thei lives to reach such a freedom
    I support both actions in France, what they practice in muslim countries does not interest me.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • liberal-lubna-fromLahore

    well the question is, why do muslims who claim their religion to be a ‘ religion of peace ‘
    kill innocent muslims?

    On the other hand, white men kill because they are mentally ill, thats why you cannot call them terrorists.Recommend

  • numbersnumbers

    In case you missed it, the perpetrators of most of the terrorist attacks I listed have a RELIGION which they proudly flaunt and make no attempt to deny!
    There are near 2 billion Muslims who bear the stain of those Muslims carrying out terrorist attacks in their name!Recommend

  • numbersnumbers

    Just what delusion makes you think I write from or in support of India???Recommend

  • ThePrincekhan999

    So You’re Saying It Is Ok If A White Guy Murders People At Random?????Recommend

  • KlingOn2K

    How about booting them out and taking back their country? How about Islamic nations allowing other religions the same favor or is hypocrisy genetic?Recommend

  • Patwari

    There are very violent religious extremist/terrorists Hindus who kill
    Muslims under any pretext, any excuse. It’s like an open hunting season
    on Muslims in Hindustan. Muslim lynchings, under Gau Raksha, ongoing
    genocide in IOK burning whole Muslim villages, just about every other day.
    It goes on and on no stopping.
    “Yet so many Hindus refuse to accept the fact that their own carried out
    the killings by saying,”
    “These people are not Hindus.”
    “Sorry they are, and until the Hindu Nation accepts that murders, killings of
    non Hindus is enshrined in their Holy Hindutva Ideology, the only ones who
    can stop these people are Hindus themselves. And until they do, nothing will
    change.”Recommend

  • Patwari

    If you were shopping in a Walmart or a supermarket, in the US,
    minding your own business AND somebody comes along and starts
    shooting randomly and kills 3 or 5 or 10 would YOU be terrified? Yes?
    Would you not call the shooter, who terrified you, a terrorist? Yes, he
    would have scared the daylights out of you. Or would you dither and
    consult your law books and see what they define as an act of terrorism?
    Ask the people who were terrified and underwent these attacks how they
    define the shooter. The survivors. You would be surprised.
    An escaped mentally disturbed Muslim who kills would STILL be defined
    as a terrorist. That is the current backlash. Law or no law. Thanks to Big Yellow.
    If there are laws that are interpreted in a discriminatory way against a certain
    religious minority, then those laws should be challenged. And they are in the US.
    Just 30 years ago Blacks in Southern US had to prove they could read and
    write just to vote. Not so for the Whites. [ they would give the Blacks, German
    language texts to read!! Which, of course, they could not read!!]Recommend

  • Sane

    What a baseless logic?!! A a Muslim kills people this is comfortably and very quickly labelled as Islamic terrorism, without any investigation. When Christian does same …….. it is due to sickness of mind and blah blah blah. If Hindus kill Muslims this is not religious or Hindu terrorism. New definitions……….Recommend

  • Sane

    Yes, that’s what they say that Christians, Hindus, Buddhist etc. etc have right to kill people and this is not terrorism from any angle. But, if any Muslim does it then this is terrorism rather Islamic terrorism and get support from all Muslims. What standards?!!Recommend

  • Patwari

    Your blatant bias is showing, Which is more or less expected from
    a Hindu, in a Pak ePaper blog.
    Just like 2 billion Hindus bear the stain of those Hindus who hang
    Muslims in the name of Gau Raksha, who blind young school
    children on their way to school with pellet guns. Who are perpetuating
    a Muslim Genocide in Bharati Kashmir. Who kill grandmothers, old men,
    young girls in the name of Hindutva. Which they thoroughly flaunt in the
    name of religion. and do so proudly. And they say Hindustan is for Hindus Only, the rest leave.Recommend

  • fze

    The world has decided that Muslims, all kinds, don’t have issues. They are just terrorists. How logical is that, decide yourself.Recommend

  • Parvez

    You are calling it like IT SHOULD BE……..I am calling IT LIKE IT IS.Recommend

  • Patwari

    The man who killed dozens and dozens of people in Las Vegas
    and wounded more than 500 had no history, whatsoever,
    of mental illness. Nor was he ever diagnosed with one.
    He was never in a mental care facility of ANY kind. nor was he
    taking any medications. Like Xanax etc.Non were prescribed.
    He was not a drug abuser or addict or an alcoholic. A retired
    quite, very well off, accountant. Never had any trouble with law enforcement. Not even a complaint from neighbors.
    However he just went on a rampage did all these killings and wounding and mayhem. Do you even see all this?
    He planned all this meticulously for months.Still not a terrorist?
    Not even called a “domestic terrorist !!” Like Timothy McVeigh the Oklahoma City Bomber.
    At least they called McVeigh a domestic terrorist, then.
    You see, how things have changed.The double standards.
    So, what law should have been applied to this mass murderer?Recommend

  • numbersnumbers

    Hmm, was that white guy a member or supporter of known terrorist groups like almost all Muslim attackers were?Recommend

  • numbersnumbers

    Wow, another apologist for Muslim terrorist attacks!
    Next you will claim that 26/11, 9/11, London tube and bus bombings, Spanish Train bombing, Russian Moscow theatre massacre, Paris multiple attacks, Nice truck slaughter, Boston Bombing and San Bernardino shootings were not terrorist attacks since Muslims were the perpetrators!Recommend

  • ThePrincekhan999

    Doesn’t Answer My QuestionRecommend

  • Parvez

    You miss the point I am making……..he SHOULD be called a terrorist but he CAN NOT be called a terrorist unless the definition of ‘ a terrorist ‘ in American law is altered. That is how I understand the dilemma.Recommend

  • Patwari

    There is no dilemma here. And no points are missed.
    What you fail to see, time and again, is the prejudice,
    the discriminatory behavior, OR the ‘cherry picking’ as
    to which murderer should be called a terrorist.
    Even the Media, CNN, MSNBC brought it up with Big
    Yellow as to why he did not call the Las Vegas mass
    murderer a terrorist. Big Yellow hemmed and hawed.
    There is this “imaginary law” which you keep refering
    to. It simply does not exist. There is no such law.
    A society, a culture, an individual, an organization can
    brand a murderer as a “terrorist”…..or not.
    Right now Muslims are the bogeymen. So even a loud
    sneeze from a Muslim makes people dive for cover.
    And did you know Dracula and Frankenstein’s Monster
    were Muslim?Recommend

  • Dada

    Milind , Hindu just as much Terrorist, look at Modi and BJP what are they doing to Muslims for eating beef and handling cows, an animal ! You pretend as if nothing happens in India, you people need a wake up callRecommend

  • Parvez

    A Google search tells me : In the USA terrorism is defined in Title 22 Chapter 38 U.S Code 2656f as…..premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against non-combatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents.
    As I have in my comment pointed out the debate in America is ongoing and yes even in my view he should be called a terrorist……the thing is CAN he be called a terrorist within the confines of the law.
    Sadly, I am repeating myself in order to make my point. I wish a legal person with better understanding of the subject would step in to clarify.Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    Are you sir seriously blaming the Rohinga muslims against whom the Burmese lady and her military junta are committing genocide or the kashmiri muslims who are living the Indian military clampdown for the crimes lunatic militants are committing on the streets of New york or on the parisian boulevards or even on the pavements of the German metalled streets then your emotional intelligence is even lower than that of the Tweet President of the USA. No sir a biggot and a racist does not require any relativasation. Those who criticise humans for their beief in the religion of Islam have lost their compass even before they embark on a journey of life. No sir, I would not place you in this category.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Rex Minor

    You are raising difficult questions for which there are no quick solutions. I personaly would propose that muslim clerics stop taking young christians in the parish. Are you aware that christians do not hold sunday mass when there is no priest prsent in the church. It is realy pathetic whenafrican priests are being brought in to fill in the vacancies in village churches. How should the communties come together in a village without the presence of a priest?

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Patwari

    You repeating yourself does not change the facts.
    Here is a definition of a terrorist :-“using violence, threats, to
    intimidate, coerce,, create fear for submission.
    Not the “gloried version” you got from the State Dept website
    defining terrorism guidelines for countries.
    At this point, It is no longer a point of contention, wheather you believe the Las Vegas shooter IS a terrorist, It is your sanctimonious peddling/defense of how and when and to whom the contentious law applies.
    Bush Junior govt. sanctioned tortured. Because a State Dept. lawyer decided to interpreted torture laws differently after they were on the books for more than 80 years !! And US is a signatory to the Geneva Convention. Which deals with torture. Remember waterboarding?
    There is a famous description from a US senator or Congressman.
    “I know what pornography is, but I cannot define it”
    So you can apply 100 interpretations to a “terrorist law”Recommend

  • Sane

    No. I didn’t say this. Don’t mislead people. Terrorism is terrorism, having no religion. You can’t label terrorism to Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist etc. But, if there is Islamic terrorism then why not Christian terrorism, Hindu terrorism, Buddhist terrorism?Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    They call them radicalised jihadists like kamikze, who undertake such missions against those whose leaders have declared illegal wars in their countrys causng the so called collateral damage of civilians. This is nothing more than vengence which is forbidden in Islam.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Patwari

    There was a reply. But this Hindustani paper so far has not
    printed it.Recommend

  • gp65

    One mourns every single life lost in Gujarat riots for all of them were Indians, no matter what their faith. In any case when there is tit for tat killing the people who are killed by tat were not the ones that killed tit but rather innocent people who get caught in a mess not of their making. However, just some facts about Gujarat riots of Feb 2002:
    1. It was triggered by burning alive 58 Hindu pilgrims on Sabarmati express. A Muslim mob prevented the fire engine or ambulance from reaching the station.
    2. Modi asked neighboring states of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh to send additional police on day one but since these were not BJP governments, they refused to help. On day 2, he invited the army. Since most of it was posted at the border in response to the Parliament attack in December 2001, it took it a day to arrive – which was on day 3. Riots stopped on day 3. From that time until May 2014, there were no more riots in Gujarat including when Muslim terrorists killed 53 people in Akshardham temple in Oct 2002 or when there was serial bombing in Ahmedabad in 2005 by Muslim terrorists. So the notion that Modi encouraged riots or profited from them is false. If he had profited, there would have been more riots but there were none in the 12 years that followed.
    3. 794 Muslims and 254 Hindus were killed in the riots. IT was not 2000 Muslims as you have been led to believe .These are numbers based on an answer to a question in the parliament. Over a 100 policemen were killed during the riots. Who were they defending? There is a reason Modi led BJP won from many areas in 2012 Gujarat state elections which had Muslim majority.
    4. When asked what his holy book was? He said that as an individual it was Bhagvad Gita but as a PM it was the Constitution of India.
    You can continue to dislike him and that is fine. But please confirm the facts for which you hate him.Recommend

  • gp65

    IT is not an imaginary law. What Parvez says is correct. As per US law, “Legal Definition of terrorism. 1: the unlawful use or threat of violence especially against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion”
    The LAs Vegas killer was not motivated politically or trying coercion. The white supremacist who killed 9 African Americans in the Church was called a terrorist because he was trying to make a political point.
    One can question and debate the law and many are. But the law as it stands does denote a man who attacks gays because his religion is against gays as a terrorist and it does not designate the Las Vegas or Texas killer as a terrorist. I understand where you are coming from but I am simply informing you what the law is.Recommend

  • seriously?

    They shout Allahu Akbar. Many of them call for imposition of shariahRecommend

  • seriously?

    Does Saudi Arabia provide space to Hindus to pray? Would they then be allowed to block streets in Saudi Arabia to pray?
    Sorry but you cannot claim rights for Muslims when they are in minority and deny rights to non-Muslims when Muslims are in majority.Recommend

  • C Gupta

    The quote is …I know pornography when I see it, but I cannot
    define it.Recommend

  • KlingOn2K

    @Rex Minor, I appreciate your points. But there are deeper issues here. The Islamic community has taken on a siege mentality and the optics this creates is not pleasant for the locals. They will not take this lying down especially given the scant regard Muslims have for other religions in their own confines.
    This kind of backlash is not happening with people practicing other religions in the West (excepting Sikhs who are often mistaken for Muslims). I think one day the community might do some introspection but I seriously doubt it.Recommend

  • Patwari

    Well, coming from you, [even though you are a true blue
    Modi Sarkar supporter] will accept the figures. Could be
    the real numbers will never be known. They are in between.
    What is amazing is that Modi Sarkar and his cabal were
    standing around wringing their hands, going…’oh gosh, oh gosh
    somebody help us, anybody, come help us,… within listening
    distance, we need succor, succor’,…nobody wanted to help him!?
    The Army finally arrived by pedal rickshaws and public buses.
    However, do believe it, since the way you lay it out. Might have
    transpired that way. With a smidgen of salt.
    Where do you get all this inside track to the tragedy?
    One big mystery though,…why were his Western visas including
    US were cancelled?
    In general, do believe you.Recommend

  • Patwari

    It is a loosely defined law. As you write it. Subject to cherry picking
    interpretations. And it’s veracity is debatable. As you know each ‘State’
    in the US has it’s own constitution. So…
    The 9 Blacks Massacre in a church was a “hate crime” [title 7] not
    terrorism. This admitted, acknowledged, white supremacist decided
    to kill Blacks out of pure hate for the black race. No political motive at all.
    The Las Vegas killer is still an unknown. They have not determined why
    he went on a rampage.
    The 50 gays killer. in Florida was a closet gay himself. Could not live with
    his own reality. Which happens a lot. Nothing to do with religion.
    Though the act of killing, is “coercion” in itself ! Think about it.
    A bank robber may kill one, just to keep the others coerced or
    submissive.
    [See response to Parvez’s comment, a day earlier. Cannot accept his
    premise. It is skirting the issue, considered not relevant by yours truly]Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    In a democracy all citizens have equal rights under the law. Saudi arabia is far from democracy where people of other faiths though can participate in the sword dance with the royalty, the last one receiving this honour being Donald Trump who is a devoted believer of Kabbalah.

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Parvez

    Thank you for that …… Patwari understands the point I was trying to make but refuses to accept it. The funny thing is I am sympathetic to his point of view.Recommend

  • Parvez

    Those, like you, who live in America are subject to the laws of the land…….and until the definition of a terrorist is not changed to portray the correct picture…..you’ll will have to live with it.Recommend

  • Parvez

    For those living in the US, as I presume you do, ONLY the interpretation, right or wrong, as per US law will apply.Recommend

  • Patwari

    [It does not matter who lives where. That premise is ridiculous]
    All interpretations of a law can be challenged AND are challenged. Specially from selective application. Which YOU
    do not seem to understand.
    Just like a lawyer interpreted “torture” laws for Bush Jr. to fit an agenda. Even settled law is prone to be challenged. Anytime
    It is the moral compass that guides. And the ability not to look the other way.
    WHICH some commenter seems to be lacking.Recommend

  • Patwari

    Still, nobody needs you to wax poetic on what are the applicable laws in the US.
    You can now hide behind….. “who live in America”
    Obviously, when you have nothing to add except
    sounding like a broken record…..then it’s not much
    of a going concern, is it?Recommend

  • Patwari

    Thanks for the heads up.Recommend

  • Patwari

    There was a detailed response. No idea why this sister
    paper of the Hindu [in Bharat] has not printed it.Recommend

  • Rex Minor

    There is nothing sinister about the word Shariha which simply means the law legislated by muslim parliamentarians /legislators

    Rex MinorRecommend

  • Parvez

    So go ahead a change the law ……. until you do so, you are required to live according to the law. Your frustration is apparent but remember this is an open debate forum and everyone including me have the right to air their views.
    Anyway, I enjoyed the exchange and always look forward to reading your comments.Recommend

  • Patwari

    Gosh! Really! Thought we were under Zimbabwe Law. Thanks
    a bunch for for the heads up. No need to learn Swahili now.Recommend

  • Patwari

    Frustration? You mean your inability to conceptualize complex thought
    processes. That’s OK. Not everyone is blessed with that acumen. We
    can always use crayons and draw pictures for ya.
    And this is a public forum? Huh? Since when? Last time it was checked
    this is a Hindu Desh rag. With Bharati Hindus given special previliges
    to unload their toxic vitriolic poison. The kind kind that will kill a Black Mamba or a Gabon Viper or a King Cobra at 10 paces.
    It’s called spitting distance.Recommend