Senior Pakistan Taliban figure explains why they shot Malala

[EnterpriseSovereign]

A senior figure in the Pakistan Taliban has written an extraordinary letter to Malala Yousafzai setting out the reasons why she was shot, coming close to expressing regret

In the four-page document, written in shaky English and seen by The Daily Telegraph, Adnan Rasheed described his shock at hearing the 15-year old had been shot last year.

He claimed he had wanted to warn her against criticising the Taliban because of his “brotherly” feelings towards someone from his own Yousafzai tribe.

“When you were attacked it was shocking for me. I wished it would never happened and I had advised you before,” he wrote.

Malala has spent the past nine months in Britain recovering from her injuries.
She was shot twice by masked gunmen who singled her out among her friends on a school bus in the town of Mingora, Swat.

Since then she has become a symbol of the campaign to help more girls into school.

Last week, she addressed the United Nations in a speech that received global attention, where she declared: “One child, one teacher, one pen and one book can change the world. Education is the only solution.”




Her story has provoked soul searching within the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Commanders sent out a slew of press releases in the aftermath of the shooting to justify why they had attacked a young girl as public opinion hardened against them.

In the latest letter, first passed to a local journalist, Rasheed insisted Malala was not shot because of her campaign for education.

“Taliban believe that you were intentionally writing against them and running a smearing campaign to malign their efforts to establish Islamic system in Swat and your writings were provocative,” he wrote.

“You have said in your speech yesterday that pen is mightier than sword, so they attacked you for your sword not for your books or school.”

The letter writer is one of Pakistan’s most notorious terrorists. He was in the Pakistan Air Force before being imprisoned for a plot to kill Pervez Musharraf but escaped in a mass jail break last year.

Now he has a taste for flowery prose, quoting Bertrand Russell on science and referencing Sir TB Macaulay, who played a major role in introducing the English language to Indian schools in the 19th century.

“Why they want to make all human beings English? Because Englishmen are the staunch supporters and slaves of Jews,” he wrote.

Rasheed insisted the Taliban were not opposed to education, just an education system that would turn Pakistanis into slaves and had no room for Islam.

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?”

The letter ends with an invitation to return and embrace the culture of her Pashtun population, which lives along the border with Afghanistan.

“At the end I advise you to come back home, adopt the Islamic and Pashtun culture, join any female Islamic madrassa near your home town, study and learn the book of Allah, use your pen for Islam and plight of Muslim ummah and reveal the conspiracy of tiny elite who want to enslave the whole humanity for their evil agendas in the name of new world order.”

Saleem Mehsud, the journalist who obtained the letter, said the TTP wanted to set the record straight on their reasons for shooting her.

“They watched her speak at the UN and this is their reaction,” he said. “They wanted to get it out to as many people as possible.”

Source

[Zaune]

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.

[Broomstick]

Her story has provoked soul searching within the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Commanders sent out a slew of press releases in the aftermath of the shooting to justify why they had attacked a young girl as public opinion hardened against them.

Yeah, because you look so damn manly shooting unarmed schoolgirls, asshats.

“Taliban believe that you were intentionally writing against them and running a smearing campaign to malign their efforts to establish Islamic system in Swat and your writings were provocative,” he wrote.

“You have said in your speech yesterday that pen is mightier than sword, so they attacked you for your sword not for your books or school.”

Oh, right, that makes it somehow OK to shoot unarmed schoolgirls....

“At the end I advise you to come back home, adopt the Islamic and Pashtun culture, join any female Islamic madrassa near your home town, study and learn the book of Allah, use your pen for Islam and plight of Muslim ummah and reveal the conspiracy of tiny elite who want to enslave the whole humanity for their evil agendas in the name of new world order.”

Well, that assumes there is a "female madrassa" near her home, and I thought she was "revealing" the "conspiracy of tiny elite who want to enslave the whole humanity for their evil agendas in the name of new world order" when she spoke against the Taliban. You know, the guys who think it's OK to shoot unarmed 15 year old schoolgirls who don't agree with them.

[Hillary]

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.

It's a stupid point. That would only be a good comparison if the drone was deliberately targetting the girl. If the US started taking out 10-year old girls for preaching, then there's be a LOT of coverage I might suggest.

[Metahive]

This came up in another thread but I gotta' ask it here again. Why is the killing of specific people so much worse than the killing of random people? Wouldn't this mean a spree shooter is morally superior to an assassin and that the victims of the former should be less mourned?

[Kane Starkiller]

The issue is intent. A random spree shooter still intends to kill people every bit as an assassin so the outrage is going to be the same. Killing someone as a collateral damage, depending on whether you really went out of your way to ensure minimum possible casualties, is not the same.
This is why there is no outrage against an earthquake when it kills 100,000 people. There is no intent.

[Flagg]

This came up in another thread but I gotta' ask it here again. Why is the killing of specific people so much worse than the killing of random people? Wouldn't this mean a spree shooter is morally superior to an assassin and that the victims of the former should be less mourned?

In the case of Malala it was to shut her up and terrify others into not sending girls to school. So that's worse than a random killing simply because it was meant to have more of an impact.

[Hillary]

This came up in another thread but I gotta' ask it here again. Why is the killing of specific people so much worse than the killing of random people? Wouldn't this mean a spree shooter is morally superior to an assassin and that the victims of the former should be less mourned?

Well the difference is that the drone is only intended to hurt the person who is being targetted. In the case of a spree shooter, they want to get as many as they can.

This is not to say that drone use isn't extremely reckless, of course, but accidental actions are surely not as culpable as deliberate ones.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The irony is that in trying to kill her, they gave her cause more publicity than she could have hoped for. The fact that they are trying to justify an action which has backfired hilariously just proves how deluded they are...

[Crown]

Well that was nice of them ...

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.

It's a stupid point. That would only be a good comparison if the drone was deliberately targetting the girl. If the US started taking out 10-year old girls for preaching, then there's be a LOT of coverage I might suggest.

No, it's a very good point.

[The Grim Squeaker]

No, it's a very good point.

No, it's a fucking stupid direct point.
There is a big fucking difference between accidents and collateral damage.
Yes, collateral damage and accidents happen, and vary, but there is a huge fucking difference between shooting someone, the bullet going through a wall, and it hitting a baby, and throwing all the jew babies in a pit and spiking them deliberately.

[Hillary]

No, it's a very good point.

[Snip You Tube video]

If you have an argument to put forward as to why it is just as bad to kill someone accidentally as it is to deliberately do so then please make it. I am not going to watch a fucking You Tube video.

[madd0ct0r]

the video is basically:

1) I am a grandfather
2) My grandson (age 16 and a US citizen) and 5 others were killed in a drone attack
3) My son, previously on the US most wanted list as an Al-Quade propogandist was previously murderded by a drone attack
4) The only reason to target my grandson is because of his father.

[Thanas]

No, it's a very good point.

No, it's a fucking stupid direct point.
There is a big fucking difference between accidents and collateral damage.
Yes, collateral damage and accidents happen, and vary, but there is a huge fucking difference between shooting someone, the bullet going through a wall, and it hitting a baby, and throwing all the jew babies in a pit and spiking them deliberately.

Evidence that the guy in the video was collateral damage?

[The Grim Squeaker]

No, it's a very good point.

No, it's a fucking stupid direct point.
There is a big fucking difference between accidents and collateral damage.
Yes, collateral damage and accidents happen, and vary, but there is a huge fucking difference between shooting someone, the bullet going through a wall, and it hitting a baby, and throwing all the jew babies in a pit and spiking them deliberately.

Evidence that the guy in the video was collateral damage?

I wasn't reffering (nor interested in) a video.

[Thanas]

So...you responded to Crown without taking the time to assess his argument?

[Crown]

No, it's a very good point.

[Snip You Tube video]

If you have an argument to put forward as to why it is just as bad to kill someone accidentally as it is to deliberately do so then please make it. I am not going to watch a fucking You Tube video.

A 16 year old American citizen was killed via drone strike (along with 5 other civilians); did you know about it? Was there 'a LOT' of coverage as you suggested? Was there fuck.

Read Herman's and Chomsky's 'Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media' on how much of a non-story it is when America does this shit.

[CJvR]

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.

LOL! If the CIA had bombed her for going to school I think we can confidently say that the backlash would have been magnitudes greater.

[The Kernel]

No, it's a very good point.

No, it's a fucking stupid direct point.
There is a big fucking difference between accidents and collateral damage.
Yes, collateral damage and accidents happen, and vary, but there is a huge fucking difference between shooting someone, the bullet going through a wall, and it hitting a baby, and throwing all the jew babies in a pit and spiking them deliberately.

Evidence that the guy in the video was collateral damage?

You want him to prove a negative (that the kid wasn't a target)?

The point has already been well made that there is a big difference between deliberately targeting someone and someone who is killed by accident or as collateral damage. Civilians killed by drone strikes are a tragedy that definitely warrants outrage but this is something completely different--whatever you may say about the US drone policy I have seen no evidence that they are using it as a tool to silence nonviolent school children that they don't like.

[Ahriman238]

So I understand this, the guy explained the Taliban's motives, but said nothing like an apology, or even an admission that it might have been a mistake or a scummy thing to do?

[Thanas]

You want him to prove a negative (that the kid wasn't a target)?

No, I want him to prove that anyone among the group was a target. So far the group targeted was composed of 5 civilians, the kid and another kid. So.....who was a target there? The US is quite fastidious in stating that is has killed extremist so-and-so, so it should be quite easy to prove who was the target among the group.

[The Kernel]

You want him to prove a negative (that the kid wasn't a target)?

No, I want him to prove that anyone among the group was a target. So far the group targeted was composed of 5 civilians, the kid and another kid. So.....who was a target there? The US is quite fastidious in stating that is has killed extremist so-and-so, so it should be quite easy to prove who was the target among the group.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that it was an accident instead of collateral damage. That's still not the same thing as deliberately targeting non-violent dissidents in order to silence them.

[The Grim Squeaker]

You want him to prove a negative (that the kid wasn't a target)?

No, I want him to prove that anyone among the group was a target. So far the group targeted was composed of 5 civilians, the kid and another kid. So.....who was a target there? The US is quite fastidious in stating that is has killed extremist so-and-so, so it should be quite easy to prove who was the target among the group.

I wasn't referring to the video nor do I have any interest in watching it or arguing a specific case. My point is a GENERAL one. I have no interest of specific cases.

[Thanas]

That doesn't rule out the possibility that it was an accident instead of collateral damage.

It doesn't but I'd like a source for it being an accident.

[The Kernel]

That doesn't rule out the possibility that it was an accident instead of collateral damage.

It doesn't but I'd like a source for it being an accident.

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.