Senior Pakistan Taliban figure explains why they shot Malala

[Thanas]

Do you have reason to suspect otherwise? In the case of the girl in this thread we DO have such evidence (the deliberate targeting, her record of passive dissidence, the outright confession by Pakistan) but I'm not seeing anything presented that suggests that any drone strike ever performed by the US against children was either an accident or collateral damage.

I'm not advocating US drone policy but to suggest that drones are being used to deliberately target children with no record of violence purely to silence their inconvenient political writings requires evidence.

Well, considering the USA already target US citizens for inconvenient political writings and blows them up with no evidence whatsoever getting released that they were anything but inconvenient writers....

[The Kernel]

Unless that is sarcasm I think you are going to need to provide some references for that as I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Thanas]

You might have heard of someone called Anwar Al-Awlaki, the father of the kid that got blown up in the strike. American citizen, blown up for writing nasty things about the USA in service of Al-Quaida. With nobody ever producing a shred of evidence towards him being anything more than a writer.

[The Kernel]

You do realize he was tried by Yemen and convicted of being a member of Al Qaeda and helping to plot terrorist attacks right? That doesn't sound like he was just a writer to me.

[The Kernel]

BTW, even a cursory glance at this story suggests that it was pretty open and shut. Anwar al-Awlaki himself was tried and sentenced to be brought in "dead or alive" by a Yemenese court and then killed in Yemen...I don't see the issue here.

Clearly his son didn't deserve to be killed but there is zero indication he was the target at all and all the evidence suggests it was just an accident. Hardly surprising since it sounds like the kid went to stay with friends of his father who may very well have been targets themselves.

[Thanas]

BTW, even a cursory glance at this story suggests that it was pretty open and shut. Anwar al-Awlaki himself was tried and sentenced to be brought in "dead or alive" by a Yemenese court and then killed in Yemen...I don't see the issue here.

As if a Yemenese court had any bearing on US law, or do US forces regularly kill people other courts do not like? How about lending a few drones to china then? And what was the evidence they convicted him on? (if you think "they must have done something", then please be advised that this is not a valid retort).

No, what happened was this:

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.). It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its.

Hardly surprising since it sounds like the kid went to stay with friends of his father who may very well have been targets themselves.

Evidence? So far none of the guys killed have been identified as AQ fighters.

[The Kernel]

As if a Yemenese court had any bearing on US law, or do US forces regularly kill people other courts do not like?

Do you forget that he was killed while he was in Yemen?

And what was the evidence they convicted him on? (if you think "they must have done something", then please be advised that this is not a valid retort).

No idea, but the guy certainly was trying to make himself look guilty as hell. Just a cursory look at some of the comments he made in recruitment videos for Al Qaeda makes it pretty clear that he was trying his damnedest to incite violence against the US and hiding out in Yemen while hobnobbing with known terrorists and posting videos to YouTube talking about how the American devils must die certainly doesn't make the guy look innocent.

I have no idea if he had any operational role in Al Qaeda but people have been publicly executed for far less during wartime.

Evidence? So far none of the guys killed have been identified as AQ fighters.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof, several people were killed in that strike and the US government did not come out and say that the kid was the target (which they outright did for his father) meaning that the burden of proof is on YOU to show that he was the target. I'm proposing a possible alternate theory but it doesn't really matter if it is true or not as you would have to show some evidence of deliberate targeting and you have none because none exists.

[madd0ct0r]

people have been publicly executed for far less during wartime.

are we at war?

[The Kernel]

people have been publicly executed for far less during wartime.

are we at war?

Depends on who you ask I suppose. I think you can parallel it best to the Cold War and we certainly executed people for lesser offenses during that period in history.

[Thanas]

As if a Yemenese court had any bearing on US law, or do US forces regularly kill people other courts do not like?

Do you forget that he was killed while he was in Yemen?

And the decisions of that bastion of democracy have an impact upon US forces or his citizenship....how?

No idea, but the guy certainly was trying to make himself look guilty as hell. Just a cursory look at some of the comments he made in recruitment videos for Al Qaeda makes it pretty clear that he was trying his damnedest to incite violence against the US and hiding out in Yemen while hobnobbing with known terrorists and posting videos to YouTube talking about how the American devils must die certainly doesn't make the guy look innocent.

You know that all of that is allowed by the first amendment, right? Also, this is exactly what I said he was executed for - writing and saying mean things about the USA.

I have no idea if he had any operational role in Al Qaeda but people have been publicly executed for far less during wartime.

A) The USA is not at war with Yemen, or its own citizens, or even Al Qaida.

B) Evidence for people being executed for writing mean things in wartime before?

C) Thank you for conceding that in fact he was killed for nothing but writing or saying mean things about the USA.

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof, several people were killed in that strike and the US government did not come out and say that the kid was the target (which they outright did for his father) meaning that the burden of proof is on YOU to show that he was the target. I'm proposing a possible alternate theory but it doesn't really matter if it is true or not as you would have to show some evidence of deliberate targeting and you have none because none exists.

No, actually the burden of proof is still on you because either a) Nobody was targeted and the US forces show their typical incompetence or b) someone there was a target. You were the one who came out with the "some of these guys must have been the target". Yet the video linked to shows only civilians. No militants.

[Metahive]

In the Cold War the US' opponent was the largest military on the planet with a huge nuclear arsenal. In the "War on Terror" the opponents are loosely connected groups and individuals with at most small arms and hand-made explosives. The former was an actual, existential threat, the latter...not so much.

Excuse me when I find the comparison to be extremely preposterous. The people who use the "War on Terror" to justify the gradual erosion of the democratic state and the abandonment of all sense of morality, legality and proportion are the actual danger, not the terrorists.

[Zaune]

A) The USA is not at war with Yemen, or its own citizens, or even Al Qaida.

B) Evidence for people being executed for writing mean things in wartime before?

C) Thank you for conceding that in fact he was killed for nothing but writing or saying mean things about the USA.

A) That's kind of debatable; we haven't really updated our definitions of a state of war to take into account non-governmental organisations like Al-Queda yet. Though I wish someone bloody well would, because then we'd have to make a binding decision on what can and can't be done with Al-Queda prisoners instead of giving them whatever rights we feel like this term in office.

B) Well, there's Lord Haw-Haw... whose radio programme was a complete and utter waste of money and mostly served as a source of unintentional comedy in the UK, so that's actually a pretty crappy example.

[Mr. Coffee]

Ya know, I could have swore this thread was about the Pakistani Taliban shooting a ten year old girl, so imagine my surprise when I find out that the "Oh, yeah, America does bad things too" crowd has hijacked yet another thread... Stay classy, SDN.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

How exactly is it a "hijack" if it's a statement made in the article in the OP? The discussion is a direct response to the Taliban spokesperson's statement:

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

“I ask you and be honest in reply, if you were shot but Americans in a drone attack, would world have ever heard updates on your medical status? Would you be called ‘daughter of the nation? Would the media make a fuss about you?”

You're free to disagree with it, but if even talking about it is a problem, then that's something else.

[Mr. Coffee]

In a better time we would be focusing on the dumbass that's trying to justify specifically targeting a 10 year old girl because they got butthurt over shit a ten year old child says. But hey, let's ignore that because some jerkoff says specifically targeting a ten year old is he same as accidentally killing while making a long-winded justification for shooting children intentionally.

[mr friendly guy]

In a better time we would be focusing on the dumbass that's trying to justify specifically targeting a 10 year old girl because they got butthurt over shit a ten year old child says. But hey, let's ignore that because some jerkoff says specifically targeting a ten year old is he same as accidentally killing while making a long-winded justification for shooting children intentionally.

I am going to hazard a guess, but that is because most people agree that almost all of what he said is stupid and without validity. So there isn't much point for people to keep on posting I agree posts to the other retarded stuff the Taliban say. There is however room to debate the one thing he said which wasn't completely stupid. Not that I plan to join the debate, but I am one of those people who want to read what is being debated.

[Mr. Coffee]

In a better time we would be focusing on the dumbass that's trying to justify specifically targeting a 10 year old girl because they got butthurt over shit a ten year old child says. But hey, let's ignore that because some jerkoff says specifically targeting a ten year old is he same as accidentally killing while making a long-winded justification for shooting children intentionally.

I am going to hazard a guess, but that is because most people agree that almost all of what he said is stupid and without validity. So there isn't much point for people to keep on posting I agree posts to the other retarded stuff the Taliban say. There is however room to debate the one thing he said which wasn't completely stupid. Not that I plan to join the debate, but I am one of those people who want to read what is being debated.

I'm going to hazard a guess that everyone in this thread that argues that accidentally killing someone who was standing to close to someone we for one reason or another believe is a combatant is the same as specifically targeting a ten year old girl because she said mean things about them is a fucking moron. In fact, fuck guessing, those people are goddamned morons (also probably either very stupid or very bored if this was the best thing they could think about to argue). Seriously, if they bought the terrorist's poorly thought out tu quoque fallacy he was using to justify attempting to murder a little girl because she said someone they didn't like then they need to get the fuck off the board, preferable they'd get the fuck off the planet entirely, but getting the fuck off SDN would work in a pinch (hell, they'd probably improve the place through their absence).

[Thanas]

A) That's kind of debatable; we haven't really updated our definitions of a state of war to take into account non-governmental organisations like Al-Queda yet. Though I wish someone bloody well would, because then we'd have to make a binding decision on what can and can't be done with Al-Queda prisoners instead of giving them whatever rights we feel like this term in office.

There is no war.

B) Well, there's Lord Haw-Haw... whose radio programme was a complete and utter waste of money and mostly served as a source of unintentional comedy in the UK, so that's actually a pretty crappy example.

Yes and the brits also ran a torture factory in which they tortured captured nazi officers in violation of the law, but all of that means jack when applied to the US because the US has to my knowledge never assassinated its own citizens by military force. Just because brits have always considered rights to be somewhat flexible doesn't mean the US does.

[Zaune]

Don't take this the wrong way, but what the hell do you call what's going on in Afghanistan, then? An unusually realistic live-fire exercise?

[Thanas]

Don't take this the wrong way, but what the hell do you call what's going on in Afghanistan, then? An unusually realistic live-fire exercise?

No, Afghanistan was a war simply because the enemy was an organized government and there were clear borders. Now it is an occupation.

But bombing people in a dozen other countries is not war, anymore than the KGB assassinating dissidents abroad is war.

[Broomstick]

Yes and the brits also ran a torture factory in which they tortured captured nazi officers in violation of the law, but all of that means jack when applied to the US because the US has to my knowledge never assassinated its own citizens by military force. Just because brits have always considered rights to be somewhat flexible doesn't mean the US does.

Lady Tevar might be a better source for this, but I have a vague recollection that while the miners of Appalachia were attempting to unionize military troops were brought out and used lethal force against the striking miners. Would that count? It's not a well known collection of events in US history as the victims were poor (but, for a change, mostly white instead of brown). Surplus WWI munitions were involved, and I think there was some connection to General Billy Mitchell - those opposed to the miners got ahold of airplanes somehow, if I'm recalling correctly. Yes, I realize this is all bit vague but I'm pulling it out of memory. Maybe I'll try google it this weekend, if no one else looks it up in the meanwhile.

[madd0ct0r]

I'm going to hazard a guess that everyone in this thread that argues that accidentally killing someone who was standing to close to someone we for one reason or another believe is a combatant is the same as specifically targeting a ten year old girl because she said mean things about them is a fucking moron.

I don't think any one is arguing for the taliban. Shooting little girls in the head is evil. full stop.
The argument about the drone strike depends on who you think it targeted. Was it targeting one of the adults and the kid got killed accidentally (moderately evil) or was it targetting the kid himself based on who his father was? (very evil)

[PeZook]

Lady Tevar might be a better source for this, but I have a vague recollection that while the miners of Appalachia were attempting to unionize military troops were brought out and used lethal force against the striking miners. Would that count? It's not a well known collection of events in US history as the victims were poor (but, for a change, mostly white instead of brown). Surplus WWI munitions were involved, and I think there was some connection to General Billy Mitchell - those opposed to the miners got ahold of airplanes somehow, if I'm recalling correctly. Yes, I realize this is all bit vague but I'm pulling it out of memory. Maybe I'll try google it this weekend, if no one else looks it up in the meanwhile.

It was a battle between sherrif's deputies, a private army assembled by the coal company and unionizing miners ; The threat of sending in federal troops was used, and some air force sorties were flown as reconeissance in preparation. Once the army arrived the miners dispersed without any more fighting.

Of course, troops DID murder American citizens not that long ago at Kent State, but they weren't federal troops nor were they sent in with the EXPLICIT purpose of murdering the students (they were just issued live ammo and bayonets )

[Mr. Coffee]

I don't think any one is arguing for the taliban. Shooting little girls in the head is evil. full stop.
The argument about the drone strike depends on who you think it targeted. Was it targeting one of the adults and the kid got killed accidentally (moderately evil) or was it targetting the kid himself based on who his father was? (very evil)

Which shoots down the entire reason for discussing it in the first place, which is because some shitbag could try to justify killing a little girl for wanting to go to school by saying "if you got hit by US drones would you get this much publicity". If incidents like what happened to that kid in Yemen is any indication the little girl would have received just as much, if not more attention because the US blew up her up accidentally, never mind the absolute shitstorm that would erupt if the US intentionally blew her up. If you guys want to bullshit about US drone strikes, cool, it's not like we haven't had threads about it before. But dragging that shit out because some useless waste of oxygen in Pakistan is trying to justify murdering children because they want to go to school is, to me, the same as saying "huh, he's got something there...", which gets way the fuck to close to granting that fucker a legitimate point.

[Thanas]

One can recognize that he's got something of a point without condoning his actions or absolving him of any responsibility.