Senior Pakistan Taliban figure explains why they shot Malala

[Metahive]

*Gosh* That's of course just the same as the Red Army fighting all the way from Moscow to Berlin and losing millions of soldiers in the process! That's of course also ignoring that Bin Laden could have been caught much earlier if President Shrubbery hadn't focused instead on his little adventure in Iraq and quarter-assed the Afghanistan campaign, but keep grasping at straws and try to make the hunt for Bin Laden look epic.

[Block]

*Gosh* That's of course just the same as the Red Army fighting all the way from Moscow to Berlin and losing millions of soldiers in the process! That's of course also ignoring that Bin Laden could have been caught much earlier if President Shrubbery hadn't focused instead on his little adventure in Iraq and quarter-assed the Afghanistan campaign, but keep grasping at straws and try to make the hunt for Bin Laden look epic.

I'm pretty sure I never claimed they were the same, I'm only claiming that your screeching use of hyperbole is pathetic, and discounts the solid work done by a rather significant number of dedicated professionals. Fact is, it was probably the largest singular intel effort in the modern era.

[Thanas]

You're missing the point rather spectacularly, considering the argument that was made was only that Bin Laden is nothing compared to the threat the Nazis posed.

[PeZook]

Since fighting WW2 needed at least as much intelligence work as finding Bin Laden, it is not hyperbole at all to say killing him required an afternoon and a couple dozen men.

[Metahive]

Davidutlib: "Climbing on that molehill in my backyard was just like climbing on Mt. Everest!"
Me: "Not at all, climbing on that molehill took no effort."
Block: "How can you say that? He totally sprained his ankle while climbing on that dang molehill!"

Killing Bin Laden was nothing, nothing when compared to bringing down Hitler and everyone who seriously likens those two events to each other has a severely skewed sense of reality, period.

[Broomstick]

BUT FOR the actions of Al Qaeda and their associated terrorist groups, the United States would not be forced to conduct military operations that, unfortunately and occasionally, kill civilians. The fact that civilians are killed is admitted and acknowledged by everyone, included the United States military - but the responsibility lies with the group that started the war in the first place.

Leaving aside for just a moment whether or not the war under discussion is "justified" or not, those who are at war are responsible for the weapons they use. Some weapons are considered unacceptable, even in war, such as poison gas.

The US has a long history of developing weapons that kill their people at a distance and at a remove, that in theory and practice kill the enemy while reducing danger to the US soldiers deploying them, and might reduce risks to civilians. Some of those weapons - like aerial bombing - are used by others as well. Some, such as landmines, have been used by others but are seen by many as morally unjustifiable due to their "collateral damage" count. Drone warfare is in keeping with that trend, with the operator potentially on the other side of the planet - death at a remove doesn't get more removed than that.

The thing is, while it could, in theory, be more targeted in practice it seems not so much. It is entirely valid for others to look at the bystanders killed and question the ethics of this weapon. It can certainly make those on the using side uncomfortable, but all the questions and reservations about drones are, despite the vitriol, entirely appropriate to ask. Is target selection as rigorous as it could be? Is there a better way, better procedures, to safeguard innocent civilians? Is there another way that doesn't result in so many bystander deaths? Are collateral damage deaths truly unavoidable, or because the targeting people (either those who choose who to target or those who pull the trigger) are sloppy or careless?

Yes, the US was attacked in 2001. But since then, it has squandered the sympathy of the world and engaged in many acts that have eroded the moral standing of that nation in the world. It's very a uncomfortable situation for the Americans, who are used to seeing themselves as the unquestioned good guys (whether they should or not), but getting pissed off at others daring to ask questions doesn't get anyone anywhere.

[wautd]

Bump, because the talibarbarians just love bad PR

Taliban renew vows to attack Malala

The Pakistani Taliban say they will attack the education rights campaigner again if they get the chance.
Central & South Asia

Taliban renew vows to attack Malala


The Pakistani Taliban say they will attack the education rights campaigner again if they get the chance.
Last Modified: 07 Oct 2013 17:53


The Pakistan branch of the Taliban has vowed to attack Malala Yousafzai again if they get the chance, saying the young education rights campaigner has "no courage".

"She is not a brave girl and has no courage. We will target her again and attack whenever we have a chance," Shahidullah Shaid, spokesman for the main Tehreek-e-Taliban, Pakistan's umbrella group told AFP news agency on Monday.

Gunmen sent by the Taliban tried to kill Malala on her school bus on October 9 last year.

The Taliban says the attack on Malala was because of her anti-Islam remarks and not her pursuit of education, "She even used a fake name of Gul Makai to write a diary. We attacked Malala because she was used to speak against Taliban and Islam and not because she was going to school," Shahid said.

Malala has dismissed the threats against her life and repeated her desire to return to Pakistan from Britain, where she currently resides, she said in an interview with BBC.

International recognition

Malala is not a stranger to such threats having first rose to prominence during the Taliban's 2007-2009 rule in Pakistan's northwestern Swat Valley with a blog for the BBC Urdu service chronicaling the struggle of daily life under Taliban rule.

Her publicised criticism of the Taliban and its violent action against girls' schools meant she was soon targeted by the group who shot her in the neck and head on her way home from school last year.

She amazingly survived the attack and bacame a global ambassador for the right of all children, girls as well as boys, to go to school.

Having spread a message of "education for all" across the globe, the 16-year-old, is now among the favourites for the Nobel Peace Prize, which will be awarded on Friday.

She recently was given the RAW in WAR Anna Politkovskaya Award, named after the Russian journalist who was shot dead seven years ago. The award promotes women who have defended human rights.

"She is not a brave girl and has no courage."
Coming from a group of guys who have no problem in murdering unarmed schoolgirls

[Broomstick]

Malala gets shot in the head and not only survives and recovers but has the gumption to stand up in front of the UN and address the world? And she has no courage?

I think the Taliban need to get some better translators.

[wautd]

Malala gets shot in the head and not only survives and recovers but has the gumption to stand up in front of the UN and address the world? And she has no courage?

and wants to go back to Pakistan.

She has more balls than a schoolbus full of taliban savages

[Replicant]

He also asked whether Malala would have received as much attention if she had been hurt in a CIA drone strike.

That's actually kind of a good point, whatever else one might say about the rest.

Being injured in an accident caused by incompetence, bad luck, or a basic disregard for civilian casualties, is FAR FAR different from being targeted and shot for being female and wanting to get an education and be more than property and baby maker in a knuckle dragging society of medieval psychopaths.

[Metahive]

Malala gets shot in the head and not only survives and recovers but has the gumption to stand up in front of the UN and address the world? And she has no courage?

I think the Taliban need to get some better translators.

Fanatics don't get to be what they are because they have an abundance of self-awareness.

Being injured in an accident caused by incompetence, bad luck, or a basic disregard for civilian casualties, is FAR FAR different from being targeted and shot for being female and wanting to get an education and be more than property and baby maker in a knuckle dragging society of medieval psychopaths.

You know what I hate? When people enter a thread and pretend that the last few pages of discussion didn't happen. Instead of regurgitating something from page 1, why don't you instead address the arguments that have already been made against the attitude you have just displayed?

[wautd]

Malala's reaction on the new threats in the Daily Show

[Batman]

Malala's reaction on the new threats in the Daily Show

'Blocked on copyright grounds' for me. Do you perchance know if it's available on the 'Daily Show' homepage, which I can access (including videos)?

[wautd]

Malala's reaction on the new threats in the Daily Show

'Blocked on copyright grounds' for me. Do you perchance know if it's available on the 'Daily Show' homepage, which I can access (including videos)?

Try this?

[Batman]

Yup. Much obliged.
And much humbled. The pretty much mandatory education I got as a child, the opportunities I had for further education (however badly I used them when I used them at all) look lightyears better than what she had access to, and I never had to worry about religious nutjobs trying to kill me for getting an education.
I'm a freaking superhero and don't think I'd have the courage to do what she did.

[Metahive]

Malala on dronestrikes.



So, Americans murder innocents and give rise to terrorism this way. Anyone of the previous defenders of dronestrikes willing to disprove her? Tell her how it's totally different to murder people out of contemptuous indifference than out of fanatical hatred? How dronestrikes are a totally necessary and effective tool to combat terrorism? Bueller? Bueller?

[Gandalf]

I wonder if her stock has dropped with some Americans now that she's dared to question the Prez in her position as a lowly foreigner.

[Broomstick]

Not that I'm aware of.