My baby sister wonders if she will have to wear a bulletproof vest during Eid prayers.

If this isn't terrorism, then I don't know what is.

A week ago, a hate-fueled mass shooting by a domestic terrorist left six Sikhs dead in their own house of worship in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Yet the media still refuses to call the mass shooting of Sikhs "terrorism," let alone call the shooter a "terrorist."

Neither President Obama nor First Lady Michelle Obama has visited families of the victims or the injured in the hospital as they did two days after the mass shooting in Aurora, Colorado on July 20.

A week has gone by since Oak Creek's shooting, and there has been barely a word from either candidate after their initial statements. To add insult to injury, Michelle visited Aurora just this weekend, while the Oak Creek victims' blood is still fresh.

On Sunday, Obama was in Chicago while Romney was in his running mate Representative Paul Ryan's hometown of Janesville, Wisconsin--both cities an equidistant 90 minute drive to Oak Creek. Yet neither politician visited.

The swing state of Wisconsin is a political minefield for both candidates, but as the son of the murdered Sikh temple president says, politics should be set aside for humanity when it comes to a national tragedy.

And yes, it's a national tragedy.

Each day that our elected leaders remain silent about Oak Creek, a very loud message is sent across America about how seriously they take Islamophobia and xenophobia. And each day, another, even louder message from hateful people is sent.

Last Sunday, the same day of the temple murders, the sign for a mosque in Rhode Island was smashed with hammers.

The following day, Monday, a mosque in Missouri was destroyed in the second fire this summer.

On Tuesday, pig legs were thrown at a mosque in California while people prayed there.

On Thursday, Representative Joe Walsh, from my home state of Illinois, accused Americans, who happen to be Muslim, of plotting murder against their fellow citizens in suburban Chicago. And that too, in response to an Egyptian-American's own urging to crack down on Islam.

Nevermind that Muslims in America are Americans--is Representative Walsh sure it's not the other way around? If applying his logic to the past week, white Americans are the ones trying to kill Muslims. And each day that Obama and Romney remain silent about Oak Creek, it continues.

On Friday, no less than 36 hours after Walsh's incitement in suburban Chicago, while 500 people prayed inside and many children played outside, a white man fired shots at the suburban Chicago mosque I frequented as a kid.

In the early hours of Sunday morning, paintballs were fired at a mosque in Oklahoma.

Later on Sunday night, a bottle of acid was thrown at an Islamic school and mosque during evening prayers.

The media needs to take Islamophobia in America seriously by reporting on it in the context of a pattern, not minor, isolated incidents. We need the media to go a step further and do its job of facilitating healthy national discourse.

But more importantly, if politicians like Obama and Romney truly hope to lead our country to a better future, they should speak up--not to ingratiate themselves with Muslims by hosting iftar dinners at the White House--but to make the voices of solidarity and peace louder than the anti-Muslim incitement of their hatemongering colleagues Representatives Joe Walsh, Peter King, Michelle Bachmann, etc.

Rep. Walsh refuses to apologize and "bow down to political correctness."

This isn't about "political correctness" and it doesn't affect only one community of Americans. This is about a widespread hate that endangers the very fabric of American society.

This isn't just about Islamophobia. This is about an atmosphere that condescends the undoubted brownness of this country.

This isn't just close to home. This is home.

And the longer Obama and Romney stay silent, the longer this week will get.

Ghazala Irshad: Why American Politicians Should Take Islamophobia Seriously: One Week In Brown America

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think that history is being repeated again, though we know americans are not good at remembering history.

Though it is not as bad as the reconstruction era and beyond violence against blacks that culminated in the civil rights act of 1964, but I think america sometimes tends to take action when some water has passed the bridge. Republicans are really an anti-muslim party, with "moderates" laying low just like Pakistan, while Obama has the spine of a snake when it comes to this issue since he doesn't want to be called a "muslim" by the other side.

__________________
ADMINS SUCK

There is one issue about Muslim World, and there is a different one when it comes to Pakistan. OBAMA may be perceived an angel for Muslim world but he's done nothing of that sort for Pakistan. In fact, Pakistan and it's stability was much better prior to his arrival at office. I'll opine that Pakistan should balance it's interest first before getting all emotionally charged in feeling the pain of entire Muslim Ummah. Pakistani Awam also needs to understand that reality.

__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -

Hmm I don't know where I was discussing the foreign policy of US in regards to Pakistan, but if you want to get that off topic then let me remind you that republican friends democrats enemies stuff is really old. It was under a democratic congress that passed a democratic pushed kerry lugar (well lugar is repub but senate is democratic) bill and sent more help in the floods than in 2005 when Bush could have sent more helicopters in the earthquake relief effort. You conveniently chose to gloss over an AP poll that I posted a while back where democrats actually had more sympathy for Pakistan than republicans, who are mainly upset that Pakistan is "killing our boys". I guess that as a republican, you also admit to that view!

As far as drone strikes, do you think a romney presidency would just end them? Have you seen the outpouring of love from steve king and dana rohrbacher (republicans) had for Pakistan? Read their co-sponsored resolution about balochistan with lou gohmert from texas. But, I guess that it is all obama's fault (bush's nuclear deal to india too) since republicans do everything out of spite of that un-american bastard!

__________________
ADMINS SUCK

There is no substantial proof to your claim that Democrats had shown any seriousness towards Pakistan. Had there been any effort, there wasn't a trust deficit that is pretty evident now. Under Obama Administration, contrary to the popular belief the Pakistan issue instead of getting resolved
has become a bigger and devastating mess. What you think is old, is really not. All black and white we have today suggest nothing favorable that building ties with Democrats will do any good for Pakistan. Heck they can't help their own ass, how can they help Pakistan.. The help which you are overly mentioning, 300X more was sent to Haiti even though the devastation was far bigger in Pakistan. Under Bush administration US was at the front of relief effort I don't know what helicopters you didn't see while being lost in your own prejudice. Current administration has no sympathy towards Pakistan, I don't know where you are getting this idea.

I have read all what Gohmert, Bachmann and Rohrabacher had to say. It's all Political ploy to gain attention. The main thing lacking is the trust between governments and that is thanks to Obama admin. Under most trying circumstances, Musharraf still had far better understanding with Bush than Obama admin has today. Even today, there are far more resourceful Pakistanis in the Republican camp than in Democrats. But you are same old....blabbering about superficial stuff and sweeping aside factual evidence. If these pseudo-alarms make you feel comfortable with your choice, then be happy mate. It ain't going to change reality.

__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -

ahmad i have two points to make on this issue.

1.) it can be argued that the lack of trust and the poor relationship is due to democrats. but i would argue that it has more to do with zardari being at the helm, and the ineptitidue of ppp government. republicans had the benefit of dealing with musharraf, who was a strong and decisive leader who did not clown around. right now there is so much chaos going on in pakistan, most americans, forget democrats or republicans, most americans think paksitan is not worth the trouble. it's been labeled the most dangerous country in the world, and just go to any american news website and see the comments about any story involving pakistan. i think this has much more to do with how far pakistan has fallen under the ppp government than it has anything to do with democrats or republicans. we've created the mess, and americans are just responding in kind to the horrible impression we've created ourselves.

2.) in many threads, you've advocated a policy of isolationism and independence for pakistan from india, us, etc. under musharraf, we received substantial aid from the US, and importantly, this aid was put back into the country and not stashed away in swiss bank accounts as it's done currently. i find nothing wrong with this, and i'm proud of the reforms and invesments that musharraf made. but if you are pro-isolationist policy for pakistan, then shouldn't you favor the current climate in which pak-us ties are headed in that direction? republicans bank-rolled pakistan, whereas democrats have less sympathy as you've pointed out. but isn't that more in line with what you'd prefer pakistan's foreign policy to be?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1) Well, as far as PPP and Zardari is concerned there can be both side of argument. If you look at from Pakistan/PPP side, where Musharraf worked with a Hot Head like Bush and proved his credentials, Obama can't work with a much easier and automatic bow-down bunny. The NATO issue, the aid, the lack of help during Flood relief, and over all attempts of isolating Pakistan on Afghan issue and from rest of the World were all negative ploy deployed by OBAMA admin. The trust deficit doesn't just rise all of a sudden, it brewed up as a result multiple episodes. Raymond Davis, Drone, Ghulam Nabi Fai, NATO, Salala base, Visa restrictions to Pakistanis, memo gate it all pile up. Now if you look at from OBAMA's side, though he had a much easier task in dealing with PPP but he refused to meet the demands of PPP/Zardari of unconditional and unrestricted aid to the region, especially after finding out about the lack of sincerity from Govt. He saw an unreliable partner in Zardari though one could argue that it ain't gonna get better than Zardari for US. PPP's corruption and deterioration and radicalization of Pakistan didn't help the cause either. So both sides have done their share of mistakes to create current atmosphere of distrust. I can't blame one more than other.

2) Adil, I will always be pro-isolation for Pakistan. If current condition is a blessing in disguise then I am all for it but the problem is it is not. US attempts to isolate Pakistan from Afghan matter will not be taken easily by Pakistan Govt. How would you expect Pakistan to stay quite when US Govt. is hell bent on giving INDIA a bigger role in Afghanistan without addressing Pakistan's reservations? And even if it's better it's not because of Democrats for they have tried their fullest to send Pakistan into shitters. It's not isolating, it's actually ravaging Pakistan. WIth Pakistan having lost all respect in international community for it's corruption and failure, it's a grim outlook that they'll get a better deal from Republicans either who traditionally have tilted in their favor. It's simple, Pakistan has to solve a lot of it's own mess before looking at others for help. Hence I won't blame Obama, or Republicans or anyone for that matter and why should I look to blame anyone, have you seen our nation and their belligerent paranoia....it's their acts for which they deserve this treatment.

__________________
kya bood-o-bash poocho ho purab ke sakino! hum ko gareeb jan ke, hans hans pukar ke...
jis ko falak ne loot ke veeran kar diya, hum rehne walay hain usi ujray dyar ke -

Agreed with the highlighted part, lets set aside any pakistan strategic reasoning for a minute, simple facts is across pak-afghan border there are multiple ties which are strong btween ordinary ppl and whether someone like it or not we had been through 2 hostile flanks on eastern and western border, Pak would be stupid to allow that again. Pak has paid a very heavy price since 1979 USSR invasion of Afghanistan without even getting the border settles so excuse me but if I dont give a damn abt what NATO, Afghanistan think


BTW I am assuming pro-isolation in this sense mean regional expansion like in AESEAN then relying on west as been the problem since Quaid-e-azam

__________________
My Blog: http://www.sohnidhurti.com

^i'll let ahmad answer for himself, but in the past, isolationism for him has meant no reliance on west + india. that's a debate for another thread honestly, but i think it's impossible to isolate yourself from india given the impact it's going to have on the global economy in the next 50 years.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I don`t think even Ahmed wuld say isolating from india but a balance is needed badly in trade and on other issues.

__________________
My Blog: http://www.sohnidhurti.com

i think you'll be surprised

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.