Heroic Indigenous Fighters Combat the West, and 14 Year Old Girls

[DogOnPorch]

Taliban insurgents said on Tuesday that the Pakistani schoolgirl its gunmen shot in the head deserved to die because she had spoken out against the group and praised U.S. President Barack Obama.

Pakistan's Taliban described Yousufzai as a "spy of the West".

"For this espionage, infidels gave her awards and rewards. And Islam orders killing of those who are spying for enemies," the group said in a statement.

"She used to propagate against mujahideen (holy warriors) to defame (the) Taliban. The Quran says that people propagating against Islam and Islamic forces would be killed.

"We targeted her because she would speak against the Taliban while sitting with shameless strangers and idealized the biggest enemy of Islam, Barack Obama."

Good to hear that several arrests have been made, but I have to wonder if anything much will come of the arrests as the article points out that Pakistani government officials have refrained from criticizing the Taliban by name over the attack.

http://news.yahoo.com/taliban-says-attack-pakistani-schoolgirl-justified-120515479.html

Several men claiming to be family members have already tried to 'see' her at the London hospital. Creepy.

[Guest American Woman]

Several men claiming to be family members have already tried to 'see' her at the London hospital. Creepy.

That is creepy. I wonder if the London police are questioning such individuals? At any rate, I'd say it's a good thing that she's out of Pakistan and in the U.K. Sadly, I don't have a lot of confidence that those responsible will ever receive an appropriate sentence. I hope I am wrong.

[DogOnPorch]

That is creepy. I wonder if the London police are questioning such individuals? At any rate, I'd say it's a good thing that she's out of Pakistan and in the U.K. Sadly, I don't have a lot of confidence that those responsible will ever receive an appropriate sentence. I hope I am wrong.

She's in the UK partly for safety. But, the UK has some real live wires when it comes to Jihadis...so safety is merely a relative term.

[bud]

Sadly, I don't have a lot of confidence that those responsible will ever receive an appropriate sentence. I hope I am wrong.

i hope you're wrong as well. unfortunately, people who have committed heinous acts against children are often allowed to go free due to kangaroo court systems, kind of like this.

An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

[jbg]

i hope you're wrong as well. unfortunately, people who have committed heinous acts against children are often allowed to go free due to kangaroo court systems, kind of like this.

An Israeli army officer who fired the entire magazine of his automatic rifle into a 13-year-old Palestinian girl and then said he would have done the same even if she had been three years old was acquitted on all charges by a military court yesterday.

I located that link too. To a 2005 incident. And those incidents are quite rare compared to Islamic world atrocities.

[Guest American Woman]

I located that link too. To a 2005 incident. And those incidents are quite rare compared to Islamic world atrocities.

It's also completely different circumstances, which doesn't make it right, but doesn't make it comparable - which is my only point since that is what bud is trying to do. The Israeli soldier didn't seek the Palestinian schoolgirl out to deliberately murder her for her beliefs. From what I've read, she was where she shouldn't have been (a military security zone), and as schoolgirls are prone to do, she was carrying a school bag. Unfortunately, suicide bombers have sometimes fit that description, and apparently that was the fear. I don't know enough about the circumstances to make a judgement on the verdict, but I do know that it's not comparable to the Taliban seeking Malala Yousafzai out with the intention of deliberately murdering her for her defense of girls'/women's rights. They are still declaring their intent to kill her.

[wyly]

It's also completely different circumstances, which doesn't make it right, but doesn't make it comparable - which is my only point since that is what bud is trying to do. The Israeli soldier didn't seek the Palestinian schoolgirl out to deliberately murder her for her beliefs. From what I've read, she was where she shouldn't have been (a military security zone), and as schoolgirls are prone to do, she was carrying a school bag. Unfortunately, suicide bombers have sometimes fit that description, and apparently that was the fear. I don't know enough about the circumstances to make a judgement on the verdict, but I do know that it's not comparable to the Taliban seeking Malala Yousafzai out with the intention of deliberately murdering her for her defense of girls'/women's rights. They are still declaring their intent to kill her.

how do you live with yourself, completely devoid of morality...you claim to know just enough of the circumstances to proclaim her murder as unfortunate, justifiable incident, feigning ignorance in order to do so when the ugly truth is but a google away ...don’t want someone rubbing your nose in the ugly truth nope, can’t have that it interferes with plausible denial...

[wyly]

I located that link too. To a 2005 incident. And those incidents are quite rare compared to Islamic world atrocities.

right...official acquittal for murdering a child but it's ok because we zionists only do that occasionally not like those other religious wackos...

hey maybe you can forget about hunting down all those nazi war criminals since that was a pre-2005 crime...

[Guest American Woman]

how do you live with yourself, completely devoid of morality...

How do you live with yourself, completely devoid of intelligence?

you claim to know just enough of the circumstances to proclaim her murder as unfortunate, justifiable incident,

And what part of what I said translates to "justifiable" in your ignorant mind?

feigning ignorance in order to do so when the ugly truth is but a google away ...don’t want someone rubbing your nose in the ugly truth nope, can’t have that it interferes with plausible denial...

Sorry, I don't bite when you bait. Just responded to point out your ignorance.

[jacee]

I located that link too. To a 2005 incident. And those incidents are quite rare compared to Islamic world atrocities.

You are on pretty shaky ground jbg.

[DogOnPorch]

You are on pretty shaky ground jbg.

Hamas refused to evacuate Gaza City.

[bud]

over 300 children were killed by the israeli army during their attack on gaza. according to numerous professional bodies, many of the attacks violated international and were war crimes. but let's put that aside and compare the number of children killed by u.s. drone attacks and the number of children killed by taliban.

will the fathers, the mothers, the brothers, the sisters, the friends going to care how their sons, daughters, siblings or friends were killed? no.

[Mr.Canada]

If the Arabs would leave Israel alone no one would have to die. The Arabs want to destroy Israel and all Jews so what do you expect.

[jbg]

You are on pretty shaky ground jbg.

No, you are. The Hamas government didn't have to fire missiles into Israel and use those schools as giant human shields. They did.

[wyly]

[/font]

How do you live with yourself, completely devoid of intelligence?

And what part of what I said translates to "justifiable" in your ignorant mind?

the award for the feeblest reply of the week goes to... ...

Sorry, I don't bite when you bait. Just responded to point out your ignorance.

don't bite? when you are exposed for being bigoted of course you don't want to respond, there is no defense for it... your feigned ignorance could be answered with a simple google that would expose all the deception and lies, hatred you promote....but noooo, you now have a new gimmick, pretend to be indignant to avoid admitting/learning the truth...but you already know the truth it's just to inconvenient to admit

[jacee]

No, you are. The Hamas government didn't have to fire missiles into Israel and use those schools as giant human shields. They did.

[jacee]

Hamas refused to evacuate Gaza City.

[DogOnPorch]

Roll your eyes all you wish. Hamas provides no bomb shelters for its people and didn't move them to the countryside during Cast Lead...and the Israelis even gave them chances to do so. Even the Russians evacuated Leningrad. A far, far, far worse affair. The top Hamas brass, however, are deeply dug-in. Nice n' safe from prying drones.

Edited October 18, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bud]

watching dogonporch trying to dismiss israel's responsibility for the atrocious acts in gaza is like watching a holocaust denier who refuses to accept germany's actions in world war 2.

[DogOnPorch]

watching dogonporch trying to dismiss israel's responsibility for the atrocious acts in gaza is like watching a holocaust denier who refuses to accept germany's actions in world war 2.

Well, to you it is. Fact remains that during cease-fires, Hamas did not evacuate civilians like any normal government would have.

[kraychik]

Well, to you it is. Fact remains that during cease-fires, Hamas did not evacuate civilians like any normal government would have.

Actually, Hamas and other "Palestinian" and Arab groups intentionally use so-called civilians as human shields. Even worse, more often than not the so-called civilians voluntarily offer their services as human shields to dissuade Israel from striking a target. I remember hearing some stories from folks about how Israel had done its usual round of pre-strike warning, sending out mass text messages, leaflets from the air, radio and bullhorn announcements, in order to advise presumed civilians from evacuating an area targeted for destruction. What did many of these so-called civilians actually do? Well, they all gathered on the rooftop of course, playing a game of chicken. Israel, acquiescing as it often does to "international pressure", chose not to strike the target. This is a bind Israel always finds itself in, where it compromises the likelihood of securing its military objectives in order to reduce the likelihood of harm befalling presumed civilians. Giving out advance notice of a pending strike is not how you win a war, but this is a product of how modern warfare is prosecuted by free nations with leftist influence. America and Canada did the exact same thing in Afghanistan, with RoE that extend an advantage to the terrorists. And why? In order to appease the usual suspects from the left who masquerade as "human rights activists".

[Bonam]

Giving out advance notice of a pending strike is not how you win a war, but this is a product of how modern warfare is prosecuted by free nations with leftist influence. America and Canada did the exact same thing in Afghanistan, with RoE that extend an advantage to the terrorists. And why? In order to appease the usual suspects from the left who masquerade as "human rights activists".

Pretty much true. And the reality is it is in fact counterproductive, even from the standpoint of trying to save lives. If these wars were prosecuted with the gloves off, with full intent to achieve the objectives by any means necessary, they would be over in weeks/months instead of years/decades. And while those weeks/months would have a higher death rate, the total casualties would be much lower.

Restricted warfare as the West currently engages in just makes it so war is just tolerable enough that people will keep doing it forever. On the other hand, unleash the full hell of war and people will quickly realize how terrible it is and stop fighting.

[DogOnPorch]

Limited warfare is also a response to DEFCON threat levels and nuclear weapons. The decision to cross the line and use a nuke...either tactically or as some sort of EMP weapon.

[bleeding heart]

Pretty much true. And the reality is it is in fact counterproductive, even from the standpoint of trying to save lives. If these wars were prosecuted with the gloves off, with full intent to achieve the objectives by any means necessary, they would be over in weeks/months instead of years/decades. And while those weeks/months would have a higher death rate, the total casualties would be much lower.

There's no reason to think so.

Thanks to growing civlized natured of the public--who used to be a lot more servile to power--there are fewer war dead. This is directly and specifically because the public won't tolerate mass killings.

I mean, of what fast wars with low casualty rates are you speaking? Vietnam?

DEspite popular opinion, the American public was supportive of that war for the frist two years...three, really...and the casualty rate was monstrous.

[Guest American Woman]

I mean, of what fast wars with low casualty rates are you speaking? Vietnam?

DEspite popular opinion, the American public was supportive of that war for the frist two years...three, really...and the casualty rate was monstrous.

Since public opinion was divided during the time of which you speak, the American public was no more supportive of the war than it was opposed to the war. One of the main reasons there wasn't more support was the belief that there wasn't enough being done to try to win the war faster.