• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US appoints envoy to Muslim world

Redress said:
Either you did not comprehend what he said, or are intentionally avoiding it. He specifically said that being black may have been a benefit to King in terms of his effectiveness in the civil rights movement, and that being a woman might benefit Farah Pandith.
Click to expand...

But I never suggested that the civil rights movement didn't have a bumpy road. Nor am I suggesting that the struggle for women's rights in the Islamic world will be smooth sailing.
 
Redress said:
Either you did not comprehend what he said, or are intentionally avoiding it. He specifically said that being black may have been a benefit to King in terms of his effectiveness in the civil rights movement, and that being a woman might benefit Farah Pandith.

You still have not addressed that suggestion. You have just danced around it.
Click to expand...
I never denied it. In fact I agreed with it. But I also recognize that his being effective was due in large part to the violence his efforts catalyzed.

Dr. King was peaceful. Not everyone else was.

Ghandi was a non-violent protester, and his efforts to free India from British rule sparked a fair amount of violence--enough that he had to restrain his own people now and again (and they still shot him at the end).

Sadat made peace with Begin--and got assassinated for his trouble.

Rabin reached out to Arafat, and he got assassinated for his trouble.

Changing perceptions is a bloody business, and if you are going to throw the gauntlet of change down, you'd better be ready for when it gets picked up.
 
celticlord said:
I never denied it. In fact I agreed with it. But I also recognize that his being effective was due in large part to the violence his efforts catalyzed.

Dr. King was peaceful. Not everyone else was.

Ghandi was a non-violent protester, and his efforts to free India from British rule sparked a fair amount of violence--enough that he had to restrain his own people now and again (and they still shot him at the end).

Sadat made peace with Begin--and got assassinated for his trouble.

Rabin reached out to Arafat, and he got assassinated for his trouble.

Changing perceptions is a bloody business, and if you are going to throw the gauntlet of change down, you'd better be ready for when it gets picked up.
Click to expand...

So it's a risky job. I suspect she knows it. Not choosing a woman because a few within the Muslim world won't like it is not the kind of thing I think we should be doing.
 
Scorpion89 said:
The State Department said Ms Pandith, who is a Muslim, would be responsible for helping US efforts to "engage with Muslims around the world on a people-to-people and organizational level".

Great just what we need so I guess next we will have a special envoy to the Hindu World and then Druid World. Man this is a smack of Separation of Church and State and Racist by The Obama Admin. but hey it's Mr. Obama he can do anything he wants.
Click to expand...

Why do you have a problem with this? So what? :sigh:
 
Kandahar said:
The Taliban is a force of about 10,000 people. Islam has 1.8 billion adherents. Perhaps the United States could gear its outreach toward the other 99.9994% of the Muslim world.
Click to expand...

Or, perhaps--I know this going to be outrageous--those 1.8 billion Muslims could destroy the Taliban?
 
apdst said:
Or, perhaps--I know this going to be outrageous--those 1.8 billion Muslims could destroy the Taliban?
Click to expand...
The 17 million of so Pakistani's do fight the Taliban constantly. It's not easy to destroy an ideology though.

Why would the rest of the world's Muslim's fight a political group that is trying to take over Pakistan?
 
apdst said:
Or, perhaps--I know this going to be outrageous--those 1.8 billion Muslims could destroy the Taliban?
Click to expand...

The ones who live near the Taliban strongholds are actively doing so.
 
Gibberish said:
Remember that Indonesia, which has the largest Muslim population in the world, elected a woman President.

Remember that Pakistan, the second largest Muslim population in the world, elected a woman as Prime Minister.

Remeber that Bangladesh has elected two women Prime Ministers.

Remember that Turkey also elected a woman Prime Minister.
Click to expand...

Remember all of those Country are very Secular and the Gov controls the Religion very closely.
 
Scorpion89 said:
Remember all of those Country are very Secular and the Gov controls the Religion very closely.
Click to expand...

We are talking about the same Pakistan right?
Secular and controls religion indeed.

And inside Bangladesh, the constitution reaffirms Islam as the state religion.
 
Last edited:
Hmmm So I guess out of the six page's so far only one other person has got it, this is Illegal Envoy Church and State folks lets keep on topic here.
 
Laila said:
We are talking about the same Pakistan right?
Secular and controls religion indeed.

And inside Bangladesh, the constitution reaffirms Islam as the state religion.
Click to expand...

It might but the Bangladesh Govn. keeps a very tight control over the Imans and what can be preached.

Oh and for the record all the Countries listed also have it in the Constitution that affirms Islam as the States Religion.
 
Kandahar said:
Then you aren't looking very hard. The Taliban gets chased out of nearly every Pakistani village where they try to set up camp. And when the Pakistani military can't or won't intervene, then the villagers do it themselves.
Click to expand...

Got any docs to support the villagers chasing off the Taliban fighters everywhere they make camp?



And this proves what? Do 19 people represent the Muslim world? Do 19 people represent Saudi Arabia? Does Saudi Arabia represent the Muslim world? :confused:
Click to expand...

If it's only a very small fraction of Muslims that hate and want to destroy America and the rest love us and want to be just like us, then why an envoy?
 
Gibberish said:
The 17 million of so Pakistani's do fight the Taliban constantly. It's not easy to destroy an ideology though.

Why would the rest of the world's Muslim's fight a political group that is trying to take over Pakistan?
Click to expand...

There are anti American terrorists in every part of the Muslim Community. There are American Muslims that hate America. The Taliban aren't the only Muslims that hate us and want to kill us. Why don't all Muslims work together to destroy Islamic extemism, everywhere?
 
apdst said:
Why don't all Muslims work together to destroy Islamic extemism, everywhere?
Click to expand...

I assume you know how to eradicate extremists and terrorists. Go ahead, tell us how Muslims can achieve something the West couldn't ...
 
Scorpion89 said:
It might but the Bangladesh Govn. keeps a very tight control over the Imans and what can be preached.

Oh and for the record all the Countries listed also have it in the Constitution that affirms Islam as the States Religion.
Click to expand...

Don't label it secular.
I would hardly call Pakistan secular.

Turkey may be the only one on the list.
 
apdst said:
If it's only a very small fraction of Muslims that hate and want to destroy America and the rest love us and want to be just like us, then why an envoy?
Click to expand...

The only two options being either they hate US or love it? Wow, i never knew it was so clearcut.
 
Laila said:
I assume you know how to eradicate extremists and terrorists. Go ahead, tell us how Muslims can achieve something the West couldn't ...
Click to expand...

By going after the terrorists with the same firey zeal they went after cartoonists. Why do we see more outrage from the Muslim community over a few cartoons and none over a bunch of terrorists. One thing's for sure, lip service isn't going to defeat the Islamo-Facists.

The Muslims speak the language, know the customs, can blend in and infiltrate. That's an advantage the West doesn't have. During the Indian Wars of the 19th Century, who were the best indian trackers and indian fighters? Other indians.
 
apdst said:
During the Indian Wars of the 19th Century, who were the best indian trackers and indian fighters? Other indians.
Click to expand...
So, the best Indian fighters are Indian?
I would never guess! :2razz:
 
Scorpion89 said:
BBC NEWS | Americas | US appoints envoy to Muslim world

The US State Department has appointed its first Special Representative to Muslim Communities.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Farah Pandith would play a leading role in US efforts to "engage Muslims around the world".

She said Ms Pandith, who was born in Indian-administered Kashmir, would bring years of experience to the role.

The appointment is part of President Barack Obama's attempts to improve relations with the Muslim world.

Mrs Clinton said Ms Pandith "sees her personal experience as an illustration of how Muslim immigrants to the US can successfully integrate themselves into American society".

The State Department said Ms Pandith, who is a Muslim, would be responsible for helping US efforts to "engage with Muslims around the world on a people-to-people and organisational level".

Great just what we need so I guess next we will have a special envoy to the Hindu World and then Druid World. Man this is a smack of Separation of Church and State and Racist by The Obama Admin. but hey it's Mr. Obama he can do anything he wants.
Click to expand...
"COMMUNITIES", what the hell??? Next they'll be getting welfare checks. Communities is a code word for liberal initiatives. Why call the position a special representative....community organizers would work better.
 
apdst said:
Yes, it's called indifference, which is unacceptable.
Click to expand...

You are not serious right?

Do Americans 'love' or 'hate' every country in the world? Put them in those two categories?
There is a grey area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom