Pointing his finger towards Yasmin the first person who was given a chance to ask question after Yasmin's presentation said, "You are the very reason why we Hindus hate Muslims." That comment pretty much set up the tone for the rest of the Q&A session. From that point on the onslaught was relentless. Yasmin was accused of a very biased presentation, about presenting a Pakistani point of view, and everything in between. It is doubtful if the harassers knew each other from before, but they grew an instant camaraderie and acted en masse--they clapped on each other's comments and jeered at Yasmin's response. But the firework had to be cut short because the library was closing. When the event was announced to be over, a large number of people came to the rostrum and surrounded Yasmin--the younger among them appeared to be more aggressive. Sensing the danger associated with the charged environment, Yasmin's associates escorted her back to her car.
End result: A hostile crowd makes an event successful...and it is good copy.
Labels: کشمیر پہ ہونے والی تقریر میں شامل حاضرین نے جارح ردعمل کا مظاہرہ کیا
posted by Cemendtaur @ 11:45 PM
31 Comments:
Throughout the presentation Yasmin showed her bigoted view of world. World, as she knows with her islamist glasses. I did not expect much different either, since i knew her pointless blabber from her previous presentations and articles online. While the presentation was on no one was allowed to speak(which is fine). Problem is that Yasmine and her 2-3 supporters could not stand the debate with those who shared a different view. One east asian guy(Not indian i must say) exclaimed "What's the purpose of your pointless presentation?" Perhaps he was new to the world of liars like Yasmin..Her blabber works very well with uninformed guests. Here an informed opinion amongst the audience put her back in her cave. She was hurried away since her associates and herself had enough of buffer overruns and dangling pointers with no logic supporting them.
There were about 40 people attending.. 20 were whites and other people.. and 20 were indians willing to protest including me.
The speaker was an Indian muslim lady, born in Delhi and hobnobbing with pakistani students association in SJSU. She thanked them for organizing the event and spoke the pakistani side of the story as if it were the truth. Her presentation was totally biased and never talked about who killed hindus there.
Her conclusion was that, Kashmir was an international issue and india shud give up its "occupation" and hold a plebisite.
We all waited patiently for her to finish. When it was open for comments, I was the first to speak thus:
" Ms.Author, you are the very reason, the west has a negative view of muslims. Your presentation is full of holes and you dont have even one hindu shown in the slide. Is it because all hindus have been killed by muslims there? Let me show you some hindus (I showed a paper of hindu dead bodies in Kashmir)
You are presenting a false and biased story and trying to project it as the truth. It is just because india is a democracy were you able to travel there and write about kashmir. if it were POK, they would have cut your nose like the afghani girl and sent you back. Shame on you. shame on you"
they were taken aback, all sort of questions and comments started coming in from indians..... everyone who spoke actually spoke against it.... the author's friend then started taking questions only from non-indians hoping that will stop the tirade. he was in for a rude surprise.
A chinese student who spoke said that since so many people accused the speaker of bias, what was her point in making a totally false and one-sided presentation. She was taken back.
The author then accused me of islamophobia. and said hindus had hatred of muslims which was causing the problem. I interrupted her again and said
" Muslims do not have a iron hand covered by a soft glove. that you can attack anybody, and if somebody talks back on facts, you accuse them of islam hatred. there is no religion involved here.. all that is involved is ur false presentation of facts"
All indians started protesting and ghearoed the speaker after the event.. one of members asked her if she belonged to Jaish e Mohammad or Lashkar-e-toeba and she was taken aback....
"If you really have something in support of this bigoted liar qureshi..let it come"
There were about 40 people attending.. 20 were whites and other people.. and 20 were indians willing to protest including me.
The speaker was an Indian muslim lady, born in Delhi and hobnobbing with pakistani students association in SJSU. She thanked them for organizing the event and spoke the pakistani side of the story as if it were the truth. Her presentation was totally biased and never talked about who killed hindus there.
Her conclusion was that, Kashmir was an international issue and india shud give up its "occupation" and hold a plebisite.
We all waited patiently for her to finish. When it was open for comments, I was the first to speak thus:
" Ms.Author, you are the very reason, the west has a negative view of muslims. Your presentation is full of holes and you dont have even one hindu shown in the slide. Is it because all hindus have been killed by muslims there? Let me show you some hindus (I showed a paper of hindu dead bodies in Kashmir)
You are presenting a false and biased story and trying to project it as the truth. It is just because india is a democracy were you able to travel there and write about kashmir. if it were POK, they would have cut your nose like the afghani girl and sent you back. Shame on you. shame on you"
they were taken aback, all sort of questions and comments started coming in from indians..... everyone who spoke actually spoke against it.... the author's friend then started taking questions only from non-indians hoping that will stop the tirade. he was in for a rude surprise.
A chinese student who spoke said that since so many people accused the speaker of bias, what was her point in making a totally false and one-sided presentation. She was taken back.
The author then accused me of islamophobia. and said hindus had hatred of muslims which was causing the problem. I interrupted her again and said
" Muslims do not have a iron hand covered by a soft glove. that you can attack anybody, and if somebody talks back on facts, you accuse them of islam hatred. there is no religion involved here.. all that is involved is ur false presentation of facts"
All indians started protesting and ghearoed the speaker after the event.. one of members asked her if she belonged to Jaish e Mohammad or Lashkar-e-toeba and she was taken aback....
"If you really have something in support of this bigoted liar qureshi..let it come"
There were about 40 people attending.. 20 were whites and other people.. and 20 were indians willing to protest including me.
The speaker was an Indian muslim lady, born in Delhi and hobnobbing with pakistani students association in SJSU. She thanked them for organizing the event and spoke the pakistani side of the story as if it were the truth. Her presentation was totally biased and never talked about who killed hindus there.
Her conclusion was that, Kashmir was an international issue and india shud give up its "occupation" and hold a plebisite.
We all waited patiently for her to finish. When it was open for comments, I was the first to speak thus:
" Ms.Author, you are the very reason, the west has a negative view of muslims. Your presentation is full of holes and you dont have even one hindu shown in the slide. Is it because all hindus have been killed by muslims there? Let me show you some hindus (I showed a paper of hindu dead bodies in Kashmir)
You are presenting a false and biased story and trying to project it as the truth. It is just because india is a democracy were you able to travel there and write about kashmir. if it were POK, they would have cut your nose like the afghani girl and sent you back. Shame on you. shame on you"
they were taken aback, all sort of questions and comments started coming in from indians..... everyone who spoke actually spoke against it.... the author's friend then started taking questions only from non-indians hoping that will stop the tirade. he was in for a rude surprise.
A chinese student who spoke said that since so many people accused the speaker of bias, what was her point in making a totally false and one-sided presentation. She was taken back.
The author then accused me of islamophobia. and said hindus had hatred of muslims which was causing the problem. I interrupted her again and said
" Muslims do not have a iron hand covered by a soft glove. that you can attack anybody, and if somebody talks back on facts, you accuse them of islam hatred. there is no religion involved here.. all that is involved is ur false presentation of facts"
All indians started protesting and ghearoed the speaker after the event.. one of members asked her if she belonged to Jaish e Mohammad or Lashkar-e-toeba and she was taken aback....
"If you really have something in support of this bigoted liar qureshi..let it come"
There were about 40 people attending.. 20 were whites and other people.. and 20 were indians willing to protest including me.
The speaker was an Indian muslim lady, born in Delhi and hobnobbing with pakistani students association in SJSU. She thanked them for organizing the event and spoke the pakistani side of the story as if it were the truth. Her presentation was totally biased and never talked about who killed hindus there.
Her conclusion was that, Kashmir was an international issue and india shud give up its "occupation" and hold a plebisite.
We all waited patiently for her to finish. When it was open for comments, I was the first to speak thus:
" Ms.Author, you are the very reason, the west has a negative view of muslims. Your presentation is full of holes and you dont have even one hindu shown in the slide. Is it because all hindus have been killed by muslims there? Let me show you some hindus (I showed a paper of hindu dead bodies in Kashmir)
You are presenting a false and biased story and trying to project it as the truth. It is just because india is a democracy were you able to travel there and write about kashmir. if it were POK, they would have cut your nose like the afghani girl and sent you back. Shame on you. shame on you"
they were taken aback, all sort of questions and comments started coming in from indians..... everyone who spoke actually spoke against it.... the author's friend then started taking questions only from non-indians hoping that will stop the tirade. he was in for a rude surprise.
A chinese student who spoke said that since so many people accused the speaker of bias, what was her point in making a totally false and one-sided presentation. She was taken back.
The author then accused me of islamophobia. and said hindus had hatred of muslims which was causing the problem. I interrupted her again and said
" Muslims do not have a iron hand covered by a soft glove. that you can attack anybody, and if somebody talks back on facts, you accuse them of islam hatred. there is no religion involved here.. all that is involved is ur false presentation of facts"
All indians started protesting and ghearoed the speaker after the event.. one of members asked her if she belonged to Jaish e Mohammad or Lashkar-e-toeba and she was taken aback....
"If you really have something in support of this bigoted liar qureshi..let it come"
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
There were about 40 people attending.. 20 were whites and other people.. and 20 were indians willing to protest including me.
The speaker was an Indian muslim lady, born in Delhi and hobnobbing with pakistani students association in SJSU. She thanked them for organizing the event and spoke the pakistani side of the story as if it were the truth. Her presentation was totally biased and never talked about who killed hindus there.
Her conclusion was that, Kashmir was an international issue and india shud give up its "occupation" and hold a plebisite.
We all waited patiently for her to finish. When it was open for comments, first to speak:
" Ms.Author, you are the very reason, the west has a negative view of muslims. Your presentation is full of holes and you dont have even one hindu shown in the slide. Is it because all hindus have been killed by muslims there? Let me show you some hindus (showed a paper of hindu dead bodies in Kashmir)
You are presenting a false and biased story and trying to project it as the truth. It is just because india is a democracy were you able to travel there and write about kashmir. if it were POK, they would have cut your nose like the afghani girl and sent you back. Shame on you. shame on you"
they were taken aback, all sort of questions and comments started coming in from indians..... everyone who spoke actually spoke against it.... the author's friend then started taking questions only from non-indians hoping that will stop the tirade. he was in for a rude surprise.
A chinese student who spoke said that since so many people accused the speaker of bias, what was her point in making a totally false and one-sided presentation. She was taken back.
The author then accused crowd of islamophobia. and said hindus had hatred of muslims which was causing the problem. One person stood up and said
" Muslims do not have a iron hand covered by a soft glove. that you can attack anybody, and if somebody talks back on facts, you accuse them of islam hatred. there is no religion involved here.. all that is involved is ur false presentation of facts"
All indians started protesting and ghearoed the speaker after the event.. one of members asked her if she belonged to Jaish e Mohammad or Lashkar-e-toeba and she was taken aback....
"If you really have something in support of this bigoted liar qureshi..let it come"
Thanks, Nihilist.
Yasmin Qureshi quoted valid references--her critics did not; they kept on saying she misrepresented facts without elaborating which "facts" were misrepresented and what are the correct "facts."
Yasmin Qureshi pretty much elaborated the Kashmir situation the same way Arunkhati Roy did in Delhi, a couple of days back.
Nihilist, You write
'One east asian guy(Not indian i must say) exclaimed "What's the purpose of your pointless presentation?'
The far-eastern looking young man got confused when one after another nationalist Indians in the audience--in a concerted effort--questioned the veracity of Qureshi's presentation. Who can blame him? Anyone with limited knowledge of the subject would get confused in the face of such propaganda.
Ofcourse if she did have the balls she could have asked people to give their opinion..but she was more inclined to run away and hide once people started asking questions. I know you being an indoctrinated pakistani would have felt better if she did manage to present her lies and biased view..did you see one english lady requesting the moderator in end of the session. This is what she said. I am quoting her words "You should allow people with a differing opinion to share their view. One way discussion as you've had is not helpful."
I am elaborating some facts..If you have the knowledge...read and reply
1) Kashmir's history did not begin in 1500s under mughals..long before
islamist invaders had forcibly converted population..enforced taxes(in most
cases 7 times on non muslims) which she didn't talk of in her presentation..
Read here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_Pandit.
She talked of only tax on polygamy(which to me is justified) under dogras but
there was no systematic persecution of religion.. She failed to mention the
facts..Also to draw a parallel should have considered rule of Nizam and
their policies on minorities to see where things stood at that time.
2) She mentioned about Abdullah not getting a job because of bias...what a
joke..she hasn't read her history books correctly..He was offered a job in a
state school in kashmir which he did not take. Many more learned hindus were doing similar
jobs..In india all muslim universities get government money to admit student
with preference to muslims..There are 10s of those universities.
3) She talked about india's help in splitting pakistan..but what about the 2
million hindus murdered in there by pakistan army? There were bodies on rivers
which didn't let the locals row their boats. Mass rapes in front of whole
student hostel. Using hindu women as sex toys in army camps. Or ZAB saying
bangalis are "sons of pigs"..being thankful for india helping so many 100s
thousands refugees irrespective of religion..No mention..Being thankful
is a far cry..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwwPbkyZVJo
http://www.genocidebangladesh.org/
4) She talked of army trucks in Gulmarg. Gulmarg is less than 10 miles from
pakistan border. Do you see a need for army presence close to border? I do
but in her blind blabber she fails to look at the map..
5) Did she ever mention in her presentation that Kashmiri cry for aazadi is
a cry for nizaam-e-mustafa? i.e. another state carved out of religion and for
a religion. From what I make of it you belong to Pakistan..where a complete
religion is termed as apostates and wazib-ul-qatal..A passport form which
you obviously have signed too..Needs to declare a community as non-muslims.
Do you think you're accomplice in murder of ahmedis? Why can't she highlight
the problems that might take over kashmir if independent? And again people
demanding aazadi in kashmir have a religious slogan (i say its an islamic
call for infidel death) la-ilaaha-illala takbeeer allah-...
6) She never talked of systematic persecution of minorities in kashmir. Destruction
of temples. Cutting a sikh's hair and the threat letters issued to sikhs in valley
to convert or run away..Here is reference:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2010/08/kashmir-muslims-pressure-sikhs-to-convert-or-leave.html
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article540556.ece
7) She said the protesters in kashmir are peaceful and following a civil disobedience
movement. If i have a grievance with a state, do i have the right to burn police stations.
Stone cops, burn ambulances..pelt stone at government officials and in a few cases burn
public transport buses?
In her world view everything that cultist, fascist, xenophobic,
jihadist, obscurantist muslims do should be dismissed as one off incident but a
systematic murder of a community. Attacks on pilgrims and religious cry for islamic
jihad is a rightful call for self determination. How sick can this be?
Go on and reply on each of above and i'd see what you got..
Thanks for writing, Nihilist.
As a sociologist I am interested in studying groups of people and their aspirations, and not in proving or disproving if they are monsters or not. I see Kashmiris actively seeking independence from the country they presently find themselves in. And there is hardly anyone who can doubt it. [Or, do you?] What would they do when they would become a separate country--would they be a secular utopia or a stifling mullocracy--does not interest me at this time. Kashmir is no different than East Timor. There are many Christians in Indonesia who are happy living with the Muslim majority, and then there are some who are not. Of those unhappy ones Christians in East Timor found themselves in a favorable position where a small geographical area had them in the majority. They sought independence and finally got it. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with people being free? Or, did we get our freedom from the British to start subjugating minority communities under the second-hand concept of nationhood?
Here is a news report I wrote on the program:
--
On Eking out Independence from a Democratic Setup
A.H. Cemendtaur
Democracy is supposed to be a system of governance suited to the will of a politically conscious populace. But in the Old World democracy runs into trouble where people strongly identify themselves with particular religious, linguistic, and regional groups. In those set ups, whenever one group has an overwhelming majority the notion of equal representation of people in the democratic setup is compromised and minority communities feel democracy to be a garb under which the majority exploits the minority. In cases where such a minority group occupies a geographical area where it itself is in majority, seeking secession of that geographical entity seems to be a natural way out of the sticky situation. Attempts of such fractionations galore in the Old World--Kashmir is a prominent example.
On October 21, around 45 people gathered at the Martin Luther King Library, San Jose State University to listen to Yasmin Qureshi's talk on "Kashmir in Conflict: Roots and Global Implications." In her detailed presentation, Qureshi gave a historical account of the conflict and shared her personal experiences from a recent visit to Srinagar and other areas of the Indian occupied Kashmir. The program was arranged by the Culture & Conflict Forum.
Most Indians do not understand why Kashmir would like to break away from India, a democracy. The reason why most Indians do not understand the aspirations of the Kahsmiris is obvious: most Indians belong to the majority community and democracy favors them. Consequently Kahsmiris' ambition for freedom is in conflict with the will of the majority of India. Many right-wing Hindu groups assert themselves to be speaking for the majority; they feel they are the real custodians of the state of India--to them any talk of secession is treason. The very reason the minority group wants to secede is turned around and used as a tool to crush the voice of the minority: in a democratic setup majority rules and is considered to be making the right decisions--no mater how much the minorities disagree.
Unbeknownst to the organizers of the Thursday program the news of the event had made commotion on right wing Indian online forums. Among the audience which group was in majority became quite obvious as the presentation ended and the Q&A session started. Pointing his finger towards the speaker the first person who was given a chance to ask question said, "You are the precise reason why rest of the Hindus in India hate the Muslims." That comment pretty much set up the tone for the rest of the Q&A session. From that point on the onslaught was relentless. One questioner after another accused the speaker of a biased presentation, about misquoting figures, about presenting a Pakistani point of view, and everything in between. It is doubtful if the harassers knew each other from before, but they grew an instant camaraderie and acted en masse--they clapped on each other's comments and jeered at the presenter's response. But the firework had to be cut short because the library was closing. The lesson everybody took home was obvious: majority wins and the minority voice, no matter how righteous it might be, gets drowned. Viva democracy!
Here is a news report I wrote on the program:
--
On Eking out Independence from a Democratic Setup
A.H. Cemendtaur
Democracy is supposed to be a system of governance suited to the will of a politically conscious populace. But in the Old World democracy runs into trouble where people strongly identify themselves with particular religious, linguistic, and regional groups. In those set ups, whenever one group has an overwhelming majority the notion of equal representation of people in the democratic setup is compromised and minority communities feel democracy to be a garb under which the majority exploits the minority. In cases where such a minority group occupies a geographical area where it itself is in majority, seeking secession of that geographical entity seems to be a natural way out of the sticky situation. Attempts of such fractionations galore in the Old World--Kashmir is a prominent example.
On October 21, around 45 people gathered at the Martin Luther King Library, San Jose State University to listen to Yasmin Qureshi's talk on "Kashmir in Conflict: Roots and Global Implications." In her detailed presentation, Qureshi gave a historical account of the conflict and shared her personal experiences from a recent visit to Srinagar and other areas of the Indian occupied Kashmir. The program was arranged by the Culture & Conflict Forum.
Most Indians do not understand why Kashmir would like to break away from India, a democracy. The reason why most Indians do not understand the aspirations of the Kahsmiris is obvious: most Indians belong to the majority community and democracy favors them. Consequently Kahsmiris' ambition for freedom is in conflict with the will of the majority of India. Many right-wing Hindu groups assert themselves to be speaking for the majority; they feel they are the real custodians of the state of India--to them any talk of secession is treason. The very reason the minority group wants to secede is turned around and used as a tool to crush the voice of the minority: in a democratic setup majority rules and is considered to be making the right decisions--no mater how much the minorities disagree.
Unbeknownst to the organizers of the Thursday program the news of the event had made commotion on right wing Indian online forums. Among the audience which group was in majority became quite obvious as the presentation ended and the Q&A session started. Pointing his finger towards the speaker the first person who was given a chance to ask question said, "You are the precise reason why rest of the Hindus in India hate the Muslims." That comment pretty much set up the tone for the rest of the Q&A session. From that point on the onslaught was relentless. One questioner after another accused the speaker of a biased presentation, about misquoting figures, about presenting a Pakistani point of view, and everything in between. It is doubtful if the harassers knew each other from before, but they grew an instant camaraderie and acted en masse--they clapped on each other's comments and jeered at the presenter's response. But the firework had to be cut short because the library was closing. The lesson everybody took home was obvious: majority wins and the minority voice, no matter how righteous it might be, gets drowned. Viva democracy!
Here is a news report I wrote on the program:
--
On Eking out Independence from a Democratic Setup
A.H. Cemendtaur
Democracy is supposed to be a system of governance suited to the will of a politically conscious populace. But in the Old World democracy runs into trouble where people strongly identify themselves with particular religious, linguistic, and regional groups. In those set ups, whenever one group has an overwhelming majority the notion of equal representation of people in the democratic setup is compromised and minority communities feel democracy to be a garb under which the majority exploits the minority. In cases where such a minority group occupies a geographical area where it itself is in majority, seeking secession of that geographical entity seems to be a natural way out of the sticky situation. Attempts of such fractionations galore in the Old World--Kashmir is a prominent example.
On October 21, around 45 people gathered at the Martin Luther King Library, San Jose State University to listen to Yasmin Qureshi's talk on "Kashmir in Conflict: Roots and Global Implications." In her detailed presentation, Qureshi gave a historical account of the conflict and shared her personal experiences from a recent visit to Srinagar and other areas of the Indian occupied Kashmir. The program was arranged by the Culture & Conflict Forum.
Most Indians do not understand why Kashmir would like to break away from India, a democracy. The reason why most Indians do not understand the aspirations of the Kahsmiris is obvious: most Indians belong to the majority community and democracy favors them. Consequently Kahsmiris' ambition for freedom is in conflict with the will of the majority of India. Many right-wing Hindu groups assert themselves to be speaking for the majority; they feel they are the real custodians of the state of India--to them any talk of secession is treason. The very reason the minority group wants to secede is turned around and used as a tool to crush the voice of the minority: in a democratic setup majority rules and is considered to be making the right decisions--no mater how much the minorities disagree.
------continued------------
Here is a news report I wrote on the program:
--
On Eking out Independence from a Democratic Setup
A.H. Cemendtaur
Democracy is supposed to be a system of governance suited to the will of a politically conscious populace. But in the Old World democracy runs into trouble where people strongly identify themselves with particular religious, linguistic, and regional groups. In those set ups, whenever one group has an overwhelming majority the notion of equal representation of people in the democratic setup is compromised and minority communities feel democracy to be a garb under which the majority exploits the minority. In cases where such a minority group occupies a geographical area where it itself is in majority, seeking secession of that geographical entity seems to be a natural way out of the sticky situation. Attempts of such fractionations galore in the Old World--Kashmir is a prominent example.
On October 21, around 45 people gathered at the Martin Luther King Library, San Jose State University to listen to Yasmin Qureshi's talk on "Kashmir in Conflict: Roots and Global Implications." In her detailed presentation, Qureshi gave a historical account of the conflict and shared her personal experiences from a recent visit to Srinagar and other areas of the Indian occupied Kashmir. The program was arranged by the Culture & Conflict Forum.
Most Indians do not understand why Kashmir would like to break away from India, a democracy. The reason why most Indians do not understand the aspirations of the Kahsmiris is obvious: most Indians belong to the majority community and democracy favors them. Consequently Kahsmiris' ambition for freedom is in conflict with the will of the majority of India. Many right-wing Hindu groups assert themselves to be speaking for the majority; they feel they are the real custodians of the state of India--to them any talk of secession is treason.
The very reason the minority group wants to secede is turned around and used as a tool to crush the voice of the minority: in a democratic setup majority rules and is considered to be making the right decisions--no mater how much the minorities disagree.
Unbeknownst to the organizers of the Thursday program the news of the event had made commotion on right wing Indian online forums. Among the audience which group was in majority became quite obvious as the presentation ended and the Q&A session started. Pointing his finger towards the speaker the first person who was given a chance to ask question said, "You are the precise reason why rest of the Hindus in India hate the Muslims." That comment pretty much set up the tone for the rest of the Q&A session. From that point on the onslaught was relentless. One questioner after another accused the speaker of a biased presentation, about misquoting figures, about presenting a Pakistani point of view, and everything in between. It is doubtful if the harassers knew each other from before, but they grew an instant camaraderie and acted en masse--they clapped on each other's comments and jeered at the presenter's response. But the firework had to be cut short because the library was closing. The lesson everybody took home was obvious: majority wins and the minority voice, no matter how righteous it might be, gets drowned. Viva democracy!
can you please delete your repeat comments posted multiple times?
Also if you know anything about the issue, please answer the points I raised..You asked me to find holes or misrepresentation of facts in her presentation, I did that. If you do not have any facts to counter points I raised..I have to say with all due respect, you're trolling here...and I refuse to get in a conversation with a troll. I will respond to every point you raised but first reply to what I said in my points.
You said "Yasmin Qureshi quoted valid references--her critics did not; they kept on saying she misrepresented facts without elaborating which "facts" were misrepresented and what are the correct "facts.""
And I have replied..Go and show what you know of the issue...
What you guys were doing was assault and not a debate. Who can debate with such right wing people with the only objective of disrupting and insulting? I don't know much about Kashmir but I came back and read articles in the references and found out Yasmin's presentation has opened my eyes because it is similar to my country, Northern Ireland.
@Anonymous I have already explained above what some of the things she misrepresented. If you or cemendtaur have the knowledge you'd refute me on those points. Besides it's pretty much possible that another pakistani muslim is posing as being irish here...Did you not notice the moderator not allowing the opposite view to speak up? And since you really do not know about the conflict..i really think a bit of unbiased reading would help..
@cemendtaur..you mentioned that the people did not say what their counter points are..so I put forward some of counter points..Now if you really want me to answer your points(which i really want to) you should respond to the points I have raised to show Yasmin's bigoted world view.
Should you fail to do that, realize that I'd have to call you a troll. And there really cannot be a discussion. I have answered you in points above..Let your reply come to those points and we'll go from there...
Thanks, Nihilist.
You write:
Now if you really want me to answer your points(which i really want to) you should respond to the points I have raised to show Yasmin's bigoted world view.
---
Not sure why should I respond to your points that are in response to Yasmin's presentation.
As I wrote earlier:
As a sociologist I am interested in studying groups of people and their aspirations, and not in proving or disproving if they are monsters or not. I see Kashmiris actively seeking independence from the country they presently find themselves in. And there is hardly anyone who can doubt it. [Or, do you?]
This is Yasmin. Mr Nihilist, I see no point in engaging with someone who abuses someone in public. This is not India where you think you can frighten a minority.
There are laws here that do get respected. Accusing someone on religious basis can qualify as hate crime and the first comment sure does. You actually also generalized all Hindus and many Hindu friends wrote to me apologisng. You are actually giving a pretty bad picture of the majority Hindu community of India to the international community!
I already gave a detailed presentation with references. So if you doubt what I said you can go and question the respected academicians and journalists I had in the references.
Cemendtaur, thanks for taking the time to respond so patiently.
I missed this presentation :(
I am sad
/*This is Yasmin. Mr Nihilist, I see no point in engaging with someone who abuses someone in public.*/
I didn't even speak in this session..Not in q&a and not afterwards..The quote from presentation above is referenced from a forum online..go google it.
/*This is not India where you think you can frighten a minority.*/
I know this isn't pakistan/taliban either where an opinion of dissent results in a mob justice..Not kashmir either where you can force convert/selectively kill/loot a minority/force aazadi slogans and claim innocense..Thanks, I have stayed here in US long enough to realize that...and before that in same city in india that you're from..
/* There are laws here that do get respected.*/
Good for me..that saves me a lahore type mob justice..
/*Accusing someone on religious basis can qualify as hate crime and the first comment sure does.*/
You can try your luck sure..but you're right first comment was not in good taste..mostly the sentence prior to the last one in my first comment..
/* You actually also generalized all Hindus and many Hindu friends wrote to me apologisng. You are actually giving a pretty bad picture of the majority Hindu community of India to the international community!*/
Au con-traire you are giving a bad picture of a country where you have grown up, got education. I won't say you're giving a bad picture of Indian muslim community since in west, the view isn't favourable already of muslims(in my humble opinion). You can't go worse. You are an example as to why myself and so many different religions(and atheists) consider your side of debate as one sided hypocrites. I might be one of few who've read all your articles. They never show anything that you like for your country. Perhaps it's too much to ask for. Never in any of your articles do you reference a line about persecution of non-muslims in muslim countries(like pakistan or your favorite Kashmir). So no wonder as you already said , no major publication is interested in your articles. Thanks...
/*I already gave a detailed presentation with references. So if you doubt what I said you can go and question the respected academicians and journalists I had in the references.*/
Your presentation was a one sided muttering with an abrupt end when you didn't have answers to questions. I ask of you, if I gave a presentation in a public library that a religion X wants to attack a non-X target, say anywhere in west based on their doctrine. And provided references from their religious doctrines from Robert spencer, cultural from wafa sultan, Political from Geert wilders, Atheistic from christopher hitchens, Religious from omar bakri/anjem chaudry/obl/ibn warraq, past experience from aayaan hirsi ali/brigette gabriel, expansionist from Mark Stein. Would you consider what they are saying is right? And if you disagree with me and I told you go question with them because I cannot answer you! isn't that what you're doing in your last post above?
All of what I quoted are noted scholars and very respected. If I cannot defend what I say in public presentation do I really have the right to say it? Ask yourself because any answer that I provide may not be sufficient.
I have noted some points above, numbered from 1 to 7. If you believe in what you present to world you would have the knowledge to counter those. If not I'd still thank you for your time and wait for your next presentation. Yes, they are very entertaining.
/*This is Yasmin. Mr Nihilist, I see no point in engaging with someone who abuses someone in public.*/
I didn't even speak in this session..Not in q&a and not afterwards..The quote from presentation above is referenced from a forum online..go google it.
/*This is not India where you think you can frighten a minority.*/
I know this isn't pakistan/taliban either where an opinion of dissent results in a mob justice..Not kashmir either where you can force convert/selectively kill/loot a minority/force aazadi slogans and claim innocense..Thanks, I have stayed here in US long enough to realize that...and before that in same city in india that you're from..
/* There are laws here that do get respected.*/
Good for me..that saves me a lahore type mob justice..
/*Accusing someone on religious basis can qualify as hate crime and the first comment sure does.*/
You can try your luck sure..but you're right first comment was not in good taste..mostly the sentence prior to the last one in my first comment..
/* You actually also generalized all Hindus and many Hindu friends wrote to me apologisng. You are actually giving a pretty bad picture of the majority Hindu community of India to the international community!*/
Au con-traire you are giving a bad picture of a country where you have grown up, got education. I won't say you're giving a bad picture of Indian muslim community since in west, the view isn't favourable already of muslims(in my humble opinion). You can't go worse. You are an example as to why myself and so many different religions(and atheists) consider your side of debate as one sided hypocrites. I might be one of few who've read all your articles. They never show anything that you like for your country. Perhaps it's too much to ask for. Never in any of your articles do you reference a line about persecution of non-muslims in muslim countries(like pakistan or your favorite Kashmir). So no wonder as you already said , no major publication is interested in your articles. Thanks...
/*I already gave a detailed presentation with references. So if you doubt what I said you can go and question the respected academicians and journalists I had in the references.*/
Your presentation was a one sided muttering with an abrupt end when you didn't have answers to questions. I ask of you, if I gave a presentation in a public library that a religion X wants to attack a non-X target, say anywhere in west based on their doctrine. And provided references from their religious doctrines from Robert spencer, cultural from wafa sultan, Political from Geert wilders, Atheistic from christopher hitchens, Religious from omar bakri/anjem chaudry/obl/ibn warraq, past experience from aayaan hirsi ali/brigette gabriel, expansionist from Mark Stein. Would you consider what they are saying is right? And if you disagree with me and I told you go question with them because I cannot answer you! isn't that what you're doing in your last post above?
All of what I quoted are noted scholars and very respected(More than who you quote). If I cannot defend what I say in a public presentation do I really have the right to say it? Ask yourself. Because any answer that I provide may not be sufficient.
I have noted some points above, numbered from 1 to 7. If you believe in what you present to world you would have the knowledge to counter those. If not I'd still thank you for your time and wait for your next presentation. Yes, they are very entertaining.
i really like this blog and i like the photos so keep it up and i hope that you will share more informatoin, i am visiting first to this blog and now i m going to keep it in my favorites
Result
Post a Comment
<< Home