Taliban Target Pro-Western 14-year-old girl

I just want to be clear here: If I say "I hope our troops remove the Taliban through force," I'm violating site rules? I'm just trying to figure out what we should be allowed to say about a group of people who target teenage girls for murder.

I'm also not convinced that he was advocating violence based on any of the criteria you cited above. It seemed to me that he was advocating violence against a group of people based on their actions. Is there no difference?

Fascinating non-sequitur. What's your point?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

By the way, to the two posters who said Muslims weren't upset about the attack:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...ggle-to-justify-attack-on-pakistani-teen?lite

I shouldn't be surprised that some people will invent traits about a people they wish to disparage, yet I'm nonetheless taken aback at the boldness of their claims, particularly given how far removed they are from reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everywhere if you ditch your willful blindness.

PM, president, political leaders condemn Taliban attack on Malala

Since when is shooting a little girl manly, or honorable, or acceptable in Islam?

Political leaders condemn dastardly attack on Malala Yousafzai

Rallies condemn attack on Malala Yousafzai

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Pakistani Interior Minister said Thursday that the plan to shoot Malala Yousafzai was hatched across Pakistan’s border, in Afghanistan.

In an exclusive interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Rehman Malik implicated Pakistani Taliban commander Maulana Fazlullah in Malala’s death. Malik said Fazlullah fled to Afghanistan during a Pakistani offensive in its Swat region.

“Four people came from there,” the interior minister told Amanpour. He also indicated that Pakistani authorities may have had previous knowledge of the planning of some type of attack.

“At that point of time we did not know exactly what there objectives were, and what type of action they were going to take, until they hit Malala.”

The Malalas you will never meet

Malik said one of the men involved in the attack has been identified and “a few of his associates have been arrested.” He also said the fiancé of one of the “terrorists” has been detained.

Malik also told Amanpour that a one million dollar bounty has been placed on the head of the spokesperson of Paksitani Talinban who claimed responsibility for Malala’s attack, Ehsanullah Ehsan.

“The mindset which you have seen – an assassination attempt on Malala – shows the intent of the terrorists,” Malik said.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...74DAAg&usg=AFQjCNHR5DRQK6MFYSmNsaG-fU4_NJNx1A

 

So now I'm being edited by the moderators here whenever I post anything? :shrug: Why is this happening now, it never happened before now? :shrug:

 

Can I repost what was being edited?


The Pakistani Interior Minister said Thursday that the plan to shoot Malala Yousafzai was hatched across Pakistan’s border, in Afghanistan.

In an exclusive interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, Rehman Malik implicated Pakistani Taliban commander Maulana Fazlullah in Malala’s death. Malik said Fazlullah fled to Afghanistan during a Pakistani offensive in its Swat region.

“Four people came from there,” the interior minister told Amanpour. He also indicated that Pakistani authorities may have had previous knowledge of the planning of some type of attack.

“At that point of time we did not know exactly what there objectives were, and what type of action they were going to take, until they hit Malala.”

The Malalas you will never meet

Malik said one of the men involved in the attack has been identified and “a few of his associates have been arrested.” He also said the fiancé of one of the “terrorists” has been detained.

Malik also told Amanpour that a one million dollar bounty has been placed on the head of the spokesperson of Paksitani Talinban who claimed responsibility for Malala’s attack, Ehsanullah Ehsan.

“The mindset which you have seen – an assassination attempt on Malala – shows the intent of the terrorists,” Malik said.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...T2w4Ew&usg=AFQjCNHR5DRQK6MFYSmNsaG-fU4_NJNx1A

 

So was Hitler. I don't see how their humanity makes any difference.

 

Oh, really?????? Is that brainless comment supposed to indicate that it would be wrong to say the members of the Manson cult should be hanged, etc. etc. "because they are people?" And remember - suicide bombers were people to. And that includes the ones who flubbed their mission and survived. We are not supposed to want them dead for their intents, right?

Just trying to get my head around exactly what you're proclaiming here.

 

James R,

I believe you are caught in the Shades of Gray here.

On the one hand, it would appear that advocating heavy violence against a group can seem rash. For example, 'putting a bullet in the skull of a Nazi."

With the Nazi unspecified, (Was it Goebbels? Uncle Adolf himself? Or maybe it was Himmler, Von Braun or Rommel?) you're left with the difficulty in justifying hatred toward a group of people, rather than contempt and disgust for one known bad guy (Hitler.)

Whereas if someone advocates violence against Polpot, Hitler or Stalin; these are known historical figures whom already are dead. Most folks won't mind the idea of kicking Hitlers ass and they'll nod and say, "You know, ok- I'm good with that."

Why is it ok to advocate violence here if it's a sport? I'm betting on George Foreman against Tyson, age notwithstanding. See? I advocated violence- and for some reason, that's ok.
"I agree that military action is needed in Krasnovia." Well, there I just advocated violence and inserting lead slugs into people again and again, it was ok.
"I think someone needs to put a bullet into ___________" Now, this is not ok. For which reason I left the name blank.

It seems to me that you made a hasty decision based on a revulsion toward the descriptive of violence.
A warning and maybe even a public post stating the reasons you believe the poll was in poor taste (It's our nature. We are this way- I'm not shy to violence by any means yet the poll bothered me too for reasons I cannot put my finger on)- perhaps removal of the poll- would have been a better response.
Ultimately, the choice is yours. My opinion is mine. And this one doesn't have a solid ground to stand on and say, "Bowser was right" or "JamesR was right."
Each of you is both right and wrong.

 

1:07
Your timing is impeccable.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Edit: Thanks man.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mod Hat — Developments and digressions

Mod Hat — Developments and digressions

I'm not proclaiming the last word on this subject by any means, but if members wish to continue expressing their sentiments about the disciplinary question, it would be best to move that discussion elsewhere.

I will simply point out that, lacking any realistic options in the poll, one can reasonably construe the poll as advocating illegal conduct. That the Taliban is the Taliban does not change the fact that torture is torture.

And what crushes me about the dissent is that it generally overlooks the obvious. A couple of members have noticed, but the persistent protests against the disciplinary action are looking right past it.

So these are the choices: Take the digression elsewhere, or see the thread forcibly returned to its appropriate topic.

I know, I know. Not much of a choice. But those are the options I'm leaving open.

We all clear on that?

Good.

Thank you.

(A note for Neverfly: Aye. All I could do is facepalm, strike for repost, and repost. Life goes on.)

 

Not sure what "effective" is supposed to mean there, but it bears mentioning that said lack of choices often stems from the Taliban's use of violent coercion to compel said support. The penalty for refusing to so "support" them can be the lives of one's entire family.

The relevance being that there is a difference between advocating violence towards some "people" in general, and advocating violence as a response to violent aggression in the first place. Advocacy of shooting a person who is himself holding an innocent third party hostage at gunpoint, is different from advocacy of shooting a person in the head because you disagree with him about some ideological question.

None of which is to say that a poll asking members to choose which exact form of medeival torture should be employed is acceptable. But I don't see any issue with the observation that violent aggression towards innocent parties is a defining feature of the Taliban, nor the position that such justifies the use of force against the Taliban. The Taliban are indeed "people," but then so are "murderers" and "rapists." When violence and aggression are themselves defining features of some group, prohibition on vilifaction of such or advocacy of violence towards them ceases to be a coherent, defensible policy - it becomes a ban on advocacy of legitimate self-defense.

The appropriate razor here has to do with advocacy of torture, which is indefensible regardless of circumstances.

 

I suppose the poll was over the top. It did take me some time to figure out why I was banned. Anyway, it sounds that the young girl is doing better, so I will keep my thoughts appropriate and wish her the best and hope for a quick recovery. I do apologize for the poll.

 

Naturally it's to be commended that there are people throughout the Middle East who are willing to stand up and condemn this atrocity. On the other hand, there have also been a lot of protests worldwide about a recently released indie film:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2012/sep/19/anti-islam-film-protests

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/09/21/film-protests-pakistan.html

Millions of street rabble and top leaders alike protesting worldwide, tens of thousands or more in Pakistan alone, riots aplenty, dozens killed including the top US diplomat in Libya, hundreds if not thousands wounded and thousands more arrested. Maybe I'm missing something subtle here, because if I'm supposed to take regional attitudes at face value, it seems that the biggest problem in the Middle East at the moment isn't little girls getting shot for going to school, but rather drug dealing convicted con artist Egyptian expatriates making crappy Youtube movies that insult their poor widdle religious sentiments. I know there's plenty of bad feelings to go around from forceful western meddling and exploitation of the Muslim world, but do they truly expect the rest of us to lose sleep over this trash? Some people out there really need to get their priorities in order as to what matters in life, it's pathetic.

 

I didn't see your poll, but knowing you a bit, I think a warning along with deleting the poll would have been sufficient to make the point. When the Taliban shot that girl it was like shooting themselves in the foot. They martyred her without killing her. Damn! How many Muslims want to rush out and cheer for them now?

 

Maybe.

But moving the frame like that can work, for a cause. Extremists separating themselves out like that can establish both the seriousness of their cause and the penalty for opposing it (a violence plagued society), and a safe "centrist" position for what would otherwise be a political extreme (we are not like that, therefore we are in the reasonable middle who just want what's best).

The assassinations of doctors who do abortions, for example, in the US, apparently did not damage the political movement associated with them. And the Islamic fundies of that region have attacked young girls before, without seeing their cause injured by the backlash and revulsion.

 

I guess time will tell.

 

And we're barely a month removed from the Rimsha Masih nonsense, where the Pakistani government was happily in the process of executing a little Christian girl with Down syndrome for burning Quran pages. And when it turns out some smelly ape (Imam Hafiz Khalid Chishti) planted those pages in her bag to help purge one of the only remaining pockets of Christianity in the whole country, she gets temporarily released on bail and the government expects everyone to have a chuckle about it like everything's ok now.

Even if she had picked up a Quran dropped by an American drone and wiped her bum with it that still wouldn't justify the death sentence, and I think it's time Pakistan were called on it. They want us to be glad that their anti-blasphemy laws weren't misapplied in this case, when any sane person knows there's no correct way to apply them under any circumstances whatsoever. I'm not going to make some ignorant call to sprinkle depleted uranium throughout their entire water supply, but I think for years now they should have already been receiving the Cuban or even North Korean treatment, until the day they show as a nation that they're actually interested in contributing to the betterment of human civilization. As far as I see it they're not allies in the war on terror, but rather direct party to the whole conflict. The government can't say it's fighting extremism with one hand while the other hand is trying to slay little girls over some stupid book.