“why should it be so surprising that these terrorists are so educated?"

August 13, 2015 9:57 AM

On 24 April 2015, Pakistani "social and human rights activist" Sabeen Mahmud was shot to death by two men on a motorbike after hosting an event for killed and disappeared journalists at her space The Second Floor (T2F).
The Anatomy Of A Murder

It was on February 13, 2015, when he says he decided that Mahmud had to die. That evening, he was at T2F, attending an event, The Karachi “Situation”: Exploring Responses. “It was something she said during the talk,” he recalls. “That we shouldn’t be afraid of the Taliban, we should stand up to them, demonstrate against them, something like that. That is when we made up our minds.” Later in the conversation, though, he adds, “There wasn’t one particular reason to target her: she was generally promoting liberal, secular values. There were those campaigns of hers, the demonstration outside Lal Masjid [in Islamabad], Pyaar ho jaane do (let there be love) on Valentine’s Day and so on.” He laughs softly, almost bashfully, as he mentions the last.

How come an IBA student became Sabeen Mahmud’s alleged killer?

posted by the man of twists and turns (5 comments total)

What's surprising is that he wasn't an engineer.
posted by srboisvert at 10:36 AM on August 13, 2015 [2 favorites]

From the first link:

In her work, she was neither a political partisan nor a power seeker but Pakistan’s state and non-state actors are averse to any form of dissent. This is why she had to be killed.
posted by bearwife at 11:28 AM on August 13, 2015

Speaking of terrorist engineers, this 2009 article keeps being sadly relevant.
posted by Carol Anne at 11:53 AM on August 13, 2015

When an interrogator asks him why he and his associates targeted Ismaili Shias, he cites their sectarian affiliation as the reason. “It is perfectly acceptable to take the lives of women and children for that reason.”

Such a terrifying attitude. Thanks for posting this, although it's horrible.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 2:00 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]

It's not that odd: many of the most highly educated were early followers of all kinds of radical political movements through the past two centuries.

In some cases, these actors might have been exposed to some ideas we today think of as not that radical—like your anti-Tsarist radicals of the 1880s, or the various revolutionaries of 1848 or (yes) 1793.

Others were more radical anti democratic types, like the various fascist groups in the 1920s and 1930s in Central Europe.

One can see frustration bubbling up in these people—whether they were wishing for a better world for us all or just for people like themselves, people who had been told all along the way that they were smarter, who worked hard, and then in the end found themselves doing something less than they dreamed about or nothing at all, whether it's because of some real or perceived injustice in the world.
posted by nothing.especially.clever at 3:34 PM on August 13, 2015 [1 favorite]