Taliban attacks Pakistani military-run school
December 16, 2014 9:24 AM Subscribe
Tuesday’s attack killed 141 including many children in grisly battle lasting several hours. The Pakistan military has launched massive air strikes in its remote border region against the Taliban in retaliation for the massacre in a Peshawar school on Tuesday morning that left at least 141 dead, 132 of them children.
The attack in Peshawar was one of the most horrific incidents in the country’s troubled history of the last decade, prompting an outcry at home and abroad – mainly because so many children were killed.
The assault began on Tuesday morning when seven attackers dressed in army uniform and wearing suicide vests stormed the school, which is attended almost exclusively by the children of army personnel.
The attack in Peshawar was one of the most horrific incidents in the country’s troubled history of the last decade, prompting an outcry at home and abroad – mainly because so many children were killed.
The assault began on Tuesday morning when seven attackers dressed in army uniform and wearing suicide vests stormed the school, which is attended almost exclusively by the children of army personnel.
Like the Beslan school massacre ten years ago, I will never understand what extremists hope to gain by killing children. When you kill a child, you can have no more implacable opponent than the surviving parents.
God bless them all.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:36 AM on December 16, 2014 [12 favorites]
God bless them all.
posted by wenestvedt at 9:36 AM on December 16, 2014 [12 favorites]
Even by the unfortunately high-bar of the hideousness of the modern terrorist attack, this is incredibly awful.
posted by rosswald at 9:38 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by rosswald at 9:38 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
"I do not know how many murderous atrocities against innocent Muslim children it will take for the world to understand that the taliban does not stand for Muslims, that their agenda does not protect Muslims. They are killing us. They are killing us. They are killing us and the world is trying to categorize the murdered and the mourning with the same people that are trying their hardest to wipe us out."
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:41 AM on December 16, 2014 [105 favorites]
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:41 AM on December 16, 2014 [105 favorites]
I will never understand what extremists hope to gain by killing children
Multiple reasons: headlines, attention, more mindshare, and a response (military, national) that they can then use as part of their recruitment campaign.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 9:42 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Multiple reasons: headlines, attention, more mindshare, and a response (military, national) that they can then use as part of their recruitment campaign.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 9:42 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
"My version of religion preaches love. It is so important that everyone adopt it that I will kill you if you don't."
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:43 AM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
posted by Mental Wimp at 9:43 AM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
BBC Liveblog
PTV Livestream (Video, Islamabad)
Guardian Liveblog
.
posted by standardasparagus at 9:44 AM on December 16, 2014
PTV Livestream (Video, Islamabad)
Guardian Liveblog
.
posted by standardasparagus at 9:44 AM on December 16, 2014
.
posted by demonic winged headgear at 9:46 AM on December 16, 2014
posted by demonic winged headgear at 9:46 AM on December 16, 2014
It is a horrendous thing and one I have difficulty in understanding how people ostensibly not Taliban could come away from hearing about and still support them.
I mean, I am pretty much diametrically opposed to the vast majority of what the Taliban have done and stood for, but in some corner of my mind I could at least understand how there might be people who would support, or at least not directly oppose them, even if they themselves where not specifically Taliban. But... acts like these, it just defies reason and makes me wonder why the entire population does not rise up and confront them. Any movement (and they use to be THE GOVERNMENT) relies on the population not actively opposing them to continue operating, if you have a movement whose tactics includes intentionally targets children how do they maintain any sense of legitimacy and support within the population.
posted by edgeways at 9:47 AM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
I mean, I am pretty much diametrically opposed to the vast majority of what the Taliban have done and stood for, but in some corner of my mind I could at least understand how there might be people who would support, or at least not directly oppose them, even if they themselves where not specifically Taliban. But... acts like these, it just defies reason and makes me wonder why the entire population does not rise up and confront them. Any movement (and they use to be THE GOVERNMENT) relies on the population not actively opposing them to continue operating, if you have a movement whose tactics includes intentionally targets children how do they maintain any sense of legitimacy and support within the population.
posted by edgeways at 9:47 AM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
I think I understand why some groups do some terrible things. But this one really I just don't understand.
Sometimes I get outraged about tragic events or sometimes I think something like "That really sucks" and move on with my life. This one made me feel like the last little bit of hope just sputtered out of me like the air out of a limp balloon.
Those attacks in Mumbai in 2008, the Newtown school massacre, this. The sad thing is I know there'll be something else just as bad or worse in the future.
posted by marxchivist at 9:50 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Sometimes I get outraged about tragic events or sometimes I think something like "That really sucks" and move on with my life. This one made me feel like the last little bit of hope just sputtered out of me like the air out of a limp balloon.
Those attacks in Mumbai in 2008, the Newtown school massacre, this. The sad thing is I know there'll be something else just as bad or worse in the future.
posted by marxchivist at 9:50 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Tragedy doesn't even come close to describing this horror. More than the Taliban I hate Musharraf, the Pakistani Army, the ISI etc who raised and nourished this serpent.
I tend to think Capital punishment is horrible in general but these people need much worse coming at them.
posted by savitarka at 9:55 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I tend to think Capital punishment is horrible in general but these people need much worse coming at them.
posted by savitarka at 9:55 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
“Schools have long been in the Taliban’s crosshairs,” the Guardian’s south Asia correspondent Jason Burke writes, in an analysis of the Peshawar attack.posted by standardasparagus at 9:55 AM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
More than a thousand have been destroyed by Islamist militants from one faction or another in the province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa in the past five years. The institutions both symbolise government authority and are seen as un-Islamic. This school is at the edge of a military “cantonment” in Peshawar, the capital of the province, and inevitably many students are the children of servicemen.
The attack reinforces the impression of a civilian and military leadership simply unable to ensure the security of Pakistan’s 180-million-plus citizens and will further raise growing concerns about the security environment across south Asia. This is of course, at least in part, the aim of the militants.
The backdrop is the continuing power struggle in Pakistan between the army generals and the elected if imperfect civilian government. On Tuesday Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister, and Raheel Sharif, the army chief, both flew to Peshawar. They did not travel together. Both said they wanted to oversee operations in person.
Jason goes on to describe how one of the main concerns in the US and elsewhere is Pakistan’s “selective” attitude to Islamist militants, and mutual suspicion reigns among officials in Kabul, Delhi, Islamabad and Washington.
Caught in the crossfire in the middle of this maelstrom of violence and politics are the children.
Buzzfeed’s Sheera Frenkel also writes that more than 1,000 schools in Pakistan have been targeted for terrorist attacks since 2009, quoting human rights groups . You can read Jason’s full dispatch here.
I tend to think Capital punishment is horrible in general but these people need much worse coming at them.
I am under the impression they are all dead, whether by suicide or having been killed by the police.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:56 AM on December 16, 2014
I am under the impression they are all dead, whether by suicide or having been killed by the police.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:56 AM on December 16, 2014
#PeshawarAttack is the Twitter tag for this, where you can find reactions from Pakistanis and others. From the feed: apparently this is one of the victims.
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:57 AM on December 16, 2014
posted by showbiz_liz at 9:57 AM on December 16, 2014
which is attended almost exclusively by the children of army personnel.
The school is located on the edge of a military cantonment in Peshawar, but the bulk of the students are civilian.
Most news media reports are stating this.
posted by infini at 9:59 AM on December 16, 2014
The school is located on the edge of a military cantonment in Peshawar, but the bulk of the students are civilian.
Most news media reports are stating this.
posted by infini at 9:59 AM on December 16, 2014
The school is located on the edge of a military cantonment in Peshawar, but the bulk of the students are civilian.No, all of the students are civilians, Telegraph.
posted by Etrigan at 10:02 AM on December 16, 2014 [26 favorites]
Would be nice to see ISI disavow and cut all ties to the Taliban after this horror, but I suspect that they will still find the Taliban too useful a tool.
posted by longdaysjourney at 10:03 AM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by longdaysjourney at 10:03 AM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
You wonder what happens the day before, as they check their weapons and prepare the explosives. What the conversations are. What they tell their mothers and their children. What they say to each other as they travel to the assigned place. What the planners and the bosses and the liason people say to each other, and to their god.
posted by Devonian at 10:05 AM on December 16, 2014 [12 favorites]
posted by Devonian at 10:05 AM on December 16, 2014 [12 favorites]
Is there any effective resistance to the Taliban in Pakistan? They appear to operate with such impunity it seems they must have some support in the government/military/population, but perhaps that's my ignorance getting in the way.
posted by tommasz at 10:09 AM on December 16, 2014
posted by tommasz at 10:09 AM on December 16, 2014
.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:09 AM on December 16, 2014
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:09 AM on December 16, 2014
This is so utterly heartbreaking. I wish I had something to say here, or someway to express...
Just tears.
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 10:10 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Just tears.
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 10:10 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
No, all of the students are civilians, Telegraph
Of course. Are there any schoolchildren serving in any military, anywhere?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:12 AM on December 16, 2014
Of course. Are there any schoolchildren serving in any military, anywhere?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:12 AM on December 16, 2014
09: 00 pm: In a significant detail emerging after the deadly assault on school, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa home department has tweeted that the attackers were not Pakistani as they had a foreign accent and spoke Arabic. They appeared to be Uzbeks.
Witness accounts say that terrorists were not Pakistani. They were speaking foreign accent and in Arabic. Their looks were Uzbek
— Home Department KPK (@htakpk) December 16, 2014 source
posted by infini at 10:16 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Witness accounts say that terrorists were not Pakistani. They were speaking foreign accent and in Arabic. Their looks were Uzbek
— Home Department KPK (@htakpk) December 16, 2014 source
posted by infini at 10:16 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
You wonder what happens the day before, as they check their weapons and prepare the explosives. What the conversations are.
"Fun" fact: shortly before 9/11, the hijackers went to a strip club.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:16 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
"Fun" fact: shortly before 9/11, the hijackers went to a strip club.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:16 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
But... acts like these, it just defies reason and makes me wonder why the entire population does not rise up and confront them.
Because they'll come at you where you can't defend against them and they'll kill your kids. And the people who fight them will probably blow up innocent people along the way, too.
A lot of that support is just as likely provided out of fear as it is out of actual dogmatic agreement.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:17 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Because they'll come at you where you can't defend against them and they'll kill your kids. And the people who fight them will probably blow up innocent people along the way, too.
A lot of that support is just as likely provided out of fear as it is out of actual dogmatic agreement.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:17 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Are there any schoolchildren serving in any military, anywhere?
Unfortunately, yes. But that's got nothing to do with this tragedy.
Just typing a period doesn't seem to cut it here.
posted by Kevin Street at 10:18 AM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
Unfortunately, yes. But that's got nothing to do with this tragedy.
Just typing a period doesn't seem to cut it here.
posted by Kevin Street at 10:18 AM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
Of course. Are there any schoolchildren serving in any military, anywhere?
Child soldiers are certainly a thing, but then we get into whether or not one considers orgs that would use them to be militaries. "Military" has connotations of professionalism and standards rather than, say, an angry mob or a group of bandits or whatever. And plenty of people see no difference there anyway. At some point we get into a lot of semantics.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:18 AM on December 16, 2014
Child soldiers are certainly a thing, but then we get into whether or not one considers orgs that would use them to be militaries. "Military" has connotations of professionalism and standards rather than, say, an angry mob or a group of bandits or whatever. And plenty of people see no difference there anyway. At some point we get into a lot of semantics.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 10:18 AM on December 16, 2014
More Than 1,000 Schools In Pakistan Have Been Attacked By The Taliban In The Last Five Years
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:19 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:19 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
The Taliban still exists today only because of the support Pakistani Govt over the last few decades.
How many people in the Pakistani Govt still today have connections with the Taliban?
posted by Flood at 10:25 AM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
How many people in the Pakistani Govt still today have connections with the Taliban?
posted by Flood at 10:25 AM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
The end of 2014 has been the worst last few months. This was the saddest news I heard all year, over 100 children dead. Ugh. I imagine Fox News is super stoked on this renewing their war on terror.
posted by mathowie at 10:27 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by mathowie at 10:27 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think this might be the thing that makes me take a break from reading or watching news for a while. There's just been too much awfulness to process recently.
posted by jbickers at 10:30 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by jbickers at 10:30 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
.
posted by oceanjesse at 10:37 AM on December 16, 2014
posted by oceanjesse at 10:37 AM on December 16, 2014
“We selected the army’s school for the attack because the government is targeting our families and females,” said Taliban spokesman Muhammad Umar Khorasani. “We want them to feel the pain.”
When the spokesman for the Taliban says this in a public statement, in a manner that he considers this terrible revenge mission to be a success... words fail me.
Because they'll come at you where you can't defend against them and they'll kill your kids. And the people who fight them will probably blow up innocent people along the way, too.
A lot of that support is just as likely provided out of fear as it is out of actual dogmatic agreement.
Fear indeed is one of the goals, but even then there are limits. Fear as a tool to control a population has a breaking point too, and when that happens, those who go too far may find they are facing an opponent who has nothing but monstrous rage and nothing left to lose. If not for the weird relationship between the Taliban and elements of the Pakistani government and military complicating the matter, I'd say this is sometimes how genocides begin.
posted by chambers at 10:42 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
When the spokesman for the Taliban says this in a public statement, in a manner that he considers this terrible revenge mission to be a success... words fail me.
Because they'll come at you where you can't defend against them and they'll kill your kids. And the people who fight them will probably blow up innocent people along the way, too.
A lot of that support is just as likely provided out of fear as it is out of actual dogmatic agreement.
Fear indeed is one of the goals, but even then there are limits. Fear as a tool to control a population has a breaking point too, and when that happens, those who go too far may find they are facing an opponent who has nothing but monstrous rage and nothing left to lose. If not for the weird relationship between the Taliban and elements of the Pakistani government and military complicating the matter, I'd say this is sometimes how genocides begin.
posted by chambers at 10:42 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
.
posted by leotrotsky at 10:52 AM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
.
posted by leotrotsky at 10:52 AM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
Kirth Gerson: "Are there any schoolchildren serving in any military, anywhere?"Sadly yes. Human Rights Watch. Child Soldiers International.
scaryblackdeath: "Child soldiers are certainly a thing, but then we get into whether or not one considers orgs that would use them to be militaries."Sold to be Soldiers: "Burmese military recruiters target children in order to meet unrelenting demands for new recruits due to continued army expansion, high desertion rates and a lack of willing volunteers. Non-state armed groups, including ethnic-based insurgent groups, also recruit and use child soldiers, though in far smaller numbers."
posted by brokkr at 10:54 AM on December 16, 2014
I have difficulty in understanding how people ostensibly not Taliban could come away from hearing about and still support them.
I wish I had difficulty understanding that.
But I don't. Not at all. Because over the past few months so many people, ostensibly on my side, have tried to justify the unjustifiable to me: attacks which make no effort to minimise civilian casualties, revenge attacks against civilian populations, attacks against massed civilian groups in the hope of killing a small number of enemy fighters, torture. I mean, torture, right? But people justify it, and these are calm, reasonable, civilised people that I know, people who sit beside me in shul, chat about politics, share my life and community. Good people.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of how the taliban's supporters will be justifying this attack today:
posted by Dreadnought at 10:54 AM on December 16, 2014 [44 favorites]
I wish I had difficulty understanding that.
But I don't. Not at all. Because over the past few months so many people, ostensibly on my side, have tried to justify the unjustifiable to me: attacks which make no effort to minimise civilian casualties, revenge attacks against civilian populations, attacks against massed civilian groups in the hope of killing a small number of enemy fighters, torture. I mean, torture, right? But people justify it, and these are calm, reasonable, civilised people that I know, people who sit beside me in shul, chat about politics, share my life and community. Good people.
Here is a non-exhaustive list of how the taliban's supporters will be justifying this attack today:
- "This doesn't count."
- "You have no proof that it was us."
- "The other guys put those kids in front of our bullets."
- "The other guys could have saved the kids, but chose not to."
- "Their children aren't really children."
- "They kill our children!"
- "So-and-so's son was fighting in that battle. You're going to tell him his son is a murderer?"
- "You can't make an omelette without breaking eggs."
posted by Dreadnought at 10:54 AM on December 16, 2014 [44 favorites]
This is the first news story I saw when I switched on the ol' Intertubes this morning. I wanted to crawl right back into bed.
I don't have a good handle on the history of the place, but this attack was purportedly done in retaliation for Pakistan's bombing of Taliban villages, and now Pakistan is retaliating by doing more bombing, and it becomes a chicken and egg problem of "he started it!"
How is it that I can know so many kind and thoughtful humans on an individual level, but humanity is so abjectly awful at a macro level?
posted by desjardins at 10:56 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I don't have a good handle on the history of the place, but this attack was purportedly done in retaliation for Pakistan's bombing of Taliban villages, and now Pakistan is retaliating by doing more bombing, and it becomes a chicken and egg problem of "he started it!"
How is it that I can know so many kind and thoughtful humans on an individual level, but humanity is so abjectly awful at a macro level?
posted by desjardins at 10:56 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble.
Luke 17:2, NIV
posted by harrietthespy at 11:04 AM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
Luke 17:2, NIV
posted by harrietthespy at 11:04 AM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
I was just reading Roberto Saviano saying that the group who did this also control 90% of the heroin trade in the world. A sad collateral of the War on Drugs if that is the case.
posted by Marauding Ennui at 11:05 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Marauding Ennui at 11:05 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:08 AM on December 16, 2014
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:08 AM on December 16, 2014
I will never understand what extremists hope to gain by killing children.
Revenge for their own dead children, I'd guess.
I have difficulty in understanding how people ostensibly not Taliban could come away from hearing about and still support them.
Maybe you haven't been following the American news this week?
posted by mhoye at 11:10 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Revenge for their own dead children, I'd guess.
I have difficulty in understanding how people ostensibly not Taliban could come away from hearing about and still support them.
Maybe you haven't been following the American news this week?
posted by mhoye at 11:10 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
And the wheels keep on turnin'
posted by ReeMonster at 11:12 AM on December 16, 2014
posted by ReeMonster at 11:12 AM on December 16, 2014
I will never understand what extremists hope to gain by killing children.
*Provoke a reaction in the political sphere.
*Revenge and hit the military in a soft spot
*Keep their name as international bad mofos which helps with foreign recruitment.
posted by stbalbach at 11:14 AM on December 16, 2014
*Provoke a reaction in the political sphere.
*Revenge and hit the military in a soft spot
*Keep their name as international bad mofos which helps with foreign recruitment.
posted by stbalbach at 11:14 AM on December 16, 2014
I will never understand what extremists hope to gain by killing children. When you kill a child, you can have no more implacable opponent than the surviving parents.
41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed
41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed
The drones came for Ayman Zawahiri on 13 January 2006, hovering over a village in Pakistan called Damadola. Ten months later, they came again for the man who would become al-Qaida’s leader, this time in Bajaur.posted by ennui.bz at 11:23 AM on December 16, 2014 [33 favorites]
Eight years later, Zawahiri is still alive. Seventy-six children and 29 adults, according to reports after the two strikes, are not.
However many Americans know who Zawahiri is, far fewer are familiar with Qari Hussain. Hussain was a deputy commander of the Pakistani Taliban, a militant group aligned with al-Qaida that trained the would-be Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, before his unsuccessful 2010 attack. The drones first came for Hussain years before, on 29 January 2008. Then they came on 23 June 2009, 15 January 2010, 2 October 2010 and 7 October 2010.
Finally, on 15 October 2010, Hellfire missiles fired from a Predator or Reaper drone killed Hussain, the Pakistani Taliban later confirmed. For the death of a man whom practically no American can name, the US killed 128 people, 13 of them children
Education is the enemy of ignorance.
80% Of the victims of war are women and children.
I guess the Taliban haven't examined the flip side of war, preferring to dish out indiscriminate destruction.
Maybe they have such a tacit acceptance in Pakistani society they feel they can negotiate with violence against children of the military. My guess is that won't work out for them, in general, even if the offenders are Uzbeki opium growing Taliban variety. It is strange they don't understand the very character of war.
Perhaps women and children are code words for their drug business, which is booming.
I don't hold out much hope for us as a species, when I realize how good we have it in comparison to most Pakistanis, and we have random, endemic violence in the USA.
The Taliban have cursed themselves today, when will their victims finally rise up?
posted by Oyéah at 11:40 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
80% Of the victims of war are women and children.
I guess the Taliban haven't examined the flip side of war, preferring to dish out indiscriminate destruction.
Maybe they have such a tacit acceptance in Pakistani society they feel they can negotiate with violence against children of the military. My guess is that won't work out for them, in general, even if the offenders are Uzbeki opium growing Taliban variety. It is strange they don't understand the very character of war.
Perhaps women and children are code words for their drug business, which is booming.
I don't hold out much hope for us as a species, when I realize how good we have it in comparison to most Pakistanis, and we have random, endemic violence in the USA.
The Taliban have cursed themselves today, when will their victims finally rise up?
posted by Oyéah at 11:40 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
If the Taliban do these terrible things to spread their ideology, I shudder to think of just how fucked up in the head you'd have to be to see murdering children--anyone's children--as a selling point.
posted by xedrik at 11:46 AM on December 16, 2014
posted by xedrik at 11:46 AM on December 16, 2014
*Provoke a reaction in the political sphere.
*Revenge and hit the military in a soft spot
*Keep their name as international bad mofos which helps with foreign recruitment
Whatever they hope to gain, they also have most likely ended up creating a group of military personnel, bonded by this tragic event they have shared, with better equipment and training than the Taliban, to seek out revenge in any form whenever they can for the rest of their lives. Break up the unit, spread them out across the country, and that will do nothing to prevent what will happen if some of them get the opportunity for revenge. As some of them rise in rank over time, they will only be better able to find or create these opportunities. I make no comment about whether or not such things are justified or not, just that this could very well be one of the long term consequences of this tragedy.
I see nothing else ahead except this cycle continuing until one side has no one left to bring to the fight, and many more terrible events like these before that comes.
And the wheels keep on turnin', indeed.
posted by chambers at 11:51 AM on December 16, 2014
*Revenge and hit the military in a soft spot
*Keep their name as international bad mofos which helps with foreign recruitment
Whatever they hope to gain, they also have most likely ended up creating a group of military personnel, bonded by this tragic event they have shared, with better equipment and training than the Taliban, to seek out revenge in any form whenever they can for the rest of their lives. Break up the unit, spread them out across the country, and that will do nothing to prevent what will happen if some of them get the opportunity for revenge. As some of them rise in rank over time, they will only be better able to find or create these opportunities. I make no comment about whether or not such things are justified or not, just that this could very well be one of the long term consequences of this tragedy.
I see nothing else ahead except this cycle continuing until one side has no one left to bring to the fight, and many more terrible events like these before that comes.
And the wheels keep on turnin', indeed.
posted by chambers at 11:51 AM on December 16, 2014
Peshawar school attack: 'Hero' Aitzaz Hasan hailed for dying to prevent earlier carnage
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:55 AM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 11:55 AM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
80% Of the victims of war are women and children
This is basically a made up statistic based on a misread of IRC report "Women and War".
posted by rr at 11:55 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
This is basically a made up statistic based on a misread of IRC report "Women and War".
posted by rr at 11:55 AM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I have difficulty in understanding how people ostensibly not Taliban could come away from hearing about and still support them.
There's a distinctly effective succintness in saying STFU or your kids are next.
posted by ocschwar at 11:55 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
There's a distinctly effective succintness in saying STFU or your kids are next.
posted by ocschwar at 11:55 AM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed
Yes, note the difference in "targeted" there. A drone attack targets fighting men, but ends up accidentally killing children. A Taliban attack targets children. Whether you think the premeditation and deliberateness of it changes the moral stakes is up to you.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 12:01 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yes, note the difference in "targeted" there. A drone attack targets fighting men, but ends up accidentally killing children. A Taliban attack targets children. Whether you think the premeditation and deliberateness of it changes the moral stakes is up to you.
posted by ThatFuzzyBastard at 12:01 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yes, note the difference in "targeted" there. A drone attack targets fighting men, but ends up accidentally killing children. A Taliban attack targets children. Whether you think the premeditation and deliberateness of it changes the moral stakes is up to you.
Drone attack blows people up.
Rescue workers and bystanders rush in to provide aid.
Follow-up drone attack blows them up, too.
This has been documented at least 17 times last I looked.
I desperately want to view the US as the good guys in this conflict, but the US goes out of its way to make that impossible.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:17 PM on December 16, 2014 [16 favorites]
Drone attack blows people up.
Rescue workers and bystanders rush in to provide aid.
Follow-up drone attack blows them up, too.
This has been documented at least 17 times last I looked.
I desperately want to view the US as the good guys in this conflict, but the US goes out of its way to make that impossible.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:17 PM on December 16, 2014 [16 favorites]
The cycle continues, and the only winners are those that make money selling arms. Their business is booming, and I'm not sure what can be done about it.
Divestment worked in South Africa, but I have doubts about it's efficacy against something like fossil fuels or arms trading, which are inherently lucrative regardless of investment.
posted by jetsetsc at 12:18 PM on December 16, 2014
Divestment worked in South Africa, but I have doubts about it's efficacy against something like fossil fuels or arms trading, which are inherently lucrative regardless of investment.
posted by jetsetsc at 12:18 PM on December 16, 2014
41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed
Yeah, bullshit. I mean, the drone attacks are awful, but the Taliban were a bunch of murdering genocidal thugs long before the US gave two shits about them. You have to work pretty hard to bring drone attacks into this, since the Taliban MO is so well-established here. Just a taste from Wikipedia:
posted by OmieWise at 12:19 PM on December 16, 2014 [14 favorites]
Yeah, bullshit. I mean, the drone attacks are awful, but the Taliban were a bunch of murdering genocidal thugs long before the US gave two shits about them. You have to work pretty hard to bring drone attacks into this, since the Taliban MO is so well-established here. Just a taste from Wikipedia:
Massacre campaignsThere's a lot more, about what the pre-2001 Taliban did.
According to a 55-page report by the United Nations, the Taliban, while trying to consolidate control over northern and western Afghanistan, committed systematic massacres against civilians.[38][39] UN officials stated that there had been "15 massacres" between 1996 and 2001.[38][39] They also said, that "[t]hese have been highly systematic and they all lead back to the [Taliban] Ministry of Defense or to Mullah Omar himself."[38][39] "These are the same type of war crimes as were committed in Bosnia and should be prosecuted in international courts", one UN official was quoted as saying.[38] The documents also reveal the role of Arab and Pakistani support troops in these killings.[38][39] Bin Laden's so-called 055 Brigade was responsible for mass-killings of Afghan civilians.[33] The report by the United Nations quotes "eyewitnesses in many villages describing Arab fighters carrying long knives used for slitting throats and skinning people".[38][39] The Taliban's former ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, in late 2011 stated that cruel behaviour under and by the Taliban had been "necessary".[160]
In 1998, the United Nations accused the Taliban of denying emergency food by the UN's World Food Programme to 160,000 hungry and starving people "for political and military reasons".[161] The UN said the Taliban were starving people for their military agenda and using humanitarian assistance as a weapon of war.
On August 8, 1998 the Taliban launched an attack on Mazar-i Sharif. Of 1500 defenders only 100 survived the engagement. Once in control the Taliban began to kill people indiscriminately. At first shooting people in the street, they soon began to target Hazaras. Women were raped, and thousands of people were locked in containers and left to suffocate. This ethnic cleansing left an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 dead.[82][162]
posted by OmieWise at 12:19 PM on December 16, 2014 [14 favorites]
Yes, note the difference in "targeted" there. A drone attack targets fighting men, but ends up accidentally killing children.
It's not an accident when they know thirty or fourty innocent children are in the building they are droning. They droned Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in an open-air market and killed nine other people who just happened to be there having lunch or whatever.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:21 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
It's not an accident when they know thirty or fourty innocent children are in the building they are droning. They droned Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in an open-air market and killed nine other people who just happened to be there having lunch or whatever.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:21 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
So not so much about the moral high ground as making yourself a little mound in the pit and looking down at those in there with you.
posted by biffa at 12:21 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by biffa at 12:21 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed
Even if so, how on earth does the death of children via drone attack justify or excuse targeting and killing more children?
Also, "tragedy" and "sadness" are words that just aren't sufficient for this premeditated slaughter of innocents. This was an atrocity.
posted by bearwife at 12:25 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
Even if so, how on earth does the death of children via drone attack justify or excuse targeting and killing more children?
Also, "tragedy" and "sadness" are words that just aren't sufficient for this premeditated slaughter of innocents. This was an atrocity.
posted by bearwife at 12:25 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
Again, if you think the Taliban needed drone attacks as an excuse for this, you don't know what you are talking about. If you insist on it, you're verging on being an apologist.
Find a different way to talk about the cycle of violence or the problem with drone attacks.
posted by OmieWise at 12:27 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
Find a different way to talk about the cycle of violence or the problem with drone attacks.
posted by OmieWise at 12:27 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
I just had to go the bathroom at work and cried my eyes out for these children and their families.
.
posted by Tarumba at 12:29 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
.
posted by Tarumba at 12:29 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Drones are the polite way to kill children. Small, "targeted," and too frequent to be of particular note.
posted by MetalFingerz at 12:35 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by MetalFingerz at 12:35 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Diane Rehm did her entire first hour today covering this horror. It was really hard to listen to.
posted by Thorzdad at 12:36 PM on December 16, 2014
posted by Thorzdad at 12:36 PM on December 16, 2014
Again, if you think the Taliban needed drone attacks as an excuse for this, you don't know what you are talking about. If you insist on it, you're verging on being an apologist.
Find a different way to talk about the cycle of violence or the problem with drone attacks.
I think you're reading an awful lot into the comments on drone attacks as a factor if you're getting to this conclusion.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:36 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Find a different way to talk about the cycle of violence or the problem with drone attacks.
I think you're reading an awful lot into the comments on drone attacks as a factor if you're getting to this conclusion.
posted by scaryblackdeath at 12:36 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think you're reading an awful lot into the comments on drone attacks as a factor if you're getting to this conclusion.
You're right -- no one's saying that this has anything to do with drone attacks. It's just the regular high-horse derail.
posted by Etrigan at 12:39 PM on December 16, 2014 [9 favorites]
You're right -- no one's saying that this has anything to do with drone attacks. It's just the regular high-horse derail.
posted by Etrigan at 12:39 PM on December 16, 2014 [9 favorites]
Took nearly 50 comments for this to take the inevitable turn. You guys are slacking.
posted by rahnefan at 12:42 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by rahnefan at 12:42 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
I think you're reading an awful lot into the comments on drone attacks as a factor if you're getting to this conclusion.
I don't. I'm not sure how else to take how it was introduced and some of the subsequent comments. I could see a conversation about the culture of honor killing, this massacre, and drone attacks, for instance, that didn't seem to make the ahistorical apologist mistake here, but that's not this introduction of drones.
posted by OmieWise at 12:44 PM on December 16, 2014
I don't. I'm not sure how else to take how it was introduced and some of the subsequent comments. I could see a conversation about the culture of honor killing, this massacre, and drone attacks, for instance, that didn't seem to make the ahistorical apologist mistake here, but that's not this introduction of drones.
posted by OmieWise at 12:44 PM on December 16, 2014
Those poor families. That poor community. What an overwhelmingly dreadful loss.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:44 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:44 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
It says a lot about America that you need a high-horse to say it's wrong to kill hundreds of children.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:44 PM on December 16, 2014 [8 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:44 PM on December 16, 2014 [8 favorites]
As a factor in contributing to some people supporting them who otherwise may not, drone strikes could certainly play a role. If I lived in fear of myself or family becoming collateral damage from them, I would certainly be more likely to become radicalized against the people sending them. To the point where I could deliberately target other people's kids? Hell no. I'm a big opponent of drone strikes, but I don't think this conversation really has a place in this discussion.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:44 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:44 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yeah, bullshit. I mean, the drone attacks are awful, but the Taliban were a bunch of murdering genocidal thugs long before the US gave two shits about them.
Long before? The US fucking invented the Taliban. They're a direct result of US-Saudi-Pakistani cooperation to support Afghani mujahideen fighters in cold-war efforts to destabilize the Soviet Union. The Taliban is blowback, pure and simple.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:51 PM on December 16, 2014 [9 favorites]
Long before? The US fucking invented the Taliban. They're a direct result of US-Saudi-Pakistani cooperation to support Afghani mujahideen fighters in cold-war efforts to destabilize the Soviet Union. The Taliban is blowback, pure and simple.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:51 PM on December 16, 2014 [9 favorites]
They have been targeted by drone strikes, but the Tehrik-i-Taliban is mostly concerned with fighting the Pakistani military, since that is the organization directly oppossing their desire to carve an autonomous religious state out of the Tribal Areas in northern Pakistan.
posted by Kevin Street at 12:55 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Kevin Street at 12:55 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
Can we not be like those people at funerals who make it all about them and not about the person who actually died?
Why are we talking about how this is because of US and only US and the things we did and the things we didn't do? I am not saying we should ignore our part completely, but automatically jumping onto how it is all about us is really self-centered.
posted by Tarumba at 1:01 PM on December 16, 2014 [10 favorites]
Why are we talking about how this is because of US and only US and the things we did and the things we didn't do? I am not saying we should ignore our part completely, but automatically jumping onto how it is all about us is really self-centered.
posted by Tarumba at 1:01 PM on December 16, 2014 [10 favorites]
To be honest, I think the US is playing the part of the puppet in the whole Afghani-Pakistani civil war situation.
It is true that the US has financed the rise of the Taliban, and of various other fundamentalist movements in the region. But more and more, it seems like the huge omnipotent US military industrial complex bends into the lies "friendly nations" create.
These "friendly nations" include Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel - all nations in conflicts which could be very easily resolved if not for American resources. All nations which have absolutely zero respect for American values and ideals.
Right now, we are witnessing a huge slaughter in Syria, because "we" the West, can't figure out which group of crazies to support. And this is a situation "we" created.
During the sixties and seventies, the entire Middle East , Central Asia and East Asia were modernizing rapidly. Some societies were heading towards social democracy. Ho Chi Minh admired the American New Deal. But because of cold war craziness, "we" created a new set of radical politics, and that is where we are now. "We" created the right-wing, militarized despots, the lack of civil rights, the bad (madrassa) educations, the lack of social services. All because of imagined cold-war issues. We avoided our natural allies.
And we are repeating the same mistakes today.
posted by mumimor at 1:06 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
It is true that the US has financed the rise of the Taliban, and of various other fundamentalist movements in the region. But more and more, it seems like the huge omnipotent US military industrial complex bends into the lies "friendly nations" create.
These "friendly nations" include Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Israel - all nations in conflicts which could be very easily resolved if not for American resources. All nations which have absolutely zero respect for American values and ideals.
Right now, we are witnessing a huge slaughter in Syria, because "we" the West, can't figure out which group of crazies to support. And this is a situation "we" created.
During the sixties and seventies, the entire Middle East , Central Asia and East Asia were modernizing rapidly. Some societies were heading towards social democracy. Ho Chi Minh admired the American New Deal. But because of cold war craziness, "we" created a new set of radical politics, and that is where we are now. "We" created the right-wing, militarized despots, the lack of civil rights, the bad (madrassa) educations, the lack of social services. All because of imagined cold-war issues. We avoided our natural allies.
And we are repeating the same mistakes today.
posted by mumimor at 1:06 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
The discussion of drones is appropriate, not because child casualties in drone attacks serve as justification for Peshawar-style attacks. In fact it's the opposite. Mass atrocities like Peshawar justify American drone attacks to a Western public, which, unsurprisingly, lead to more child casualties. They are not morally equivalent, but the outcomes are similar.
posted by MetalFingerz at 1:17 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by MetalFingerz at 1:17 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
I was just reading Roberto Saviano saying that the group who did this also control 90% of the heroin trade in the world.
So the CIA is involved. Of course.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:45 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
So the CIA is involved. Of course.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:45 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
I think the point is, let's oppose and rebuke all military methods and objectives that intentionally, instrumentally involve massively more fatalities of children than combatants, whether it's fields of land mines, drones, or collateral murder at schools, whoever carries it out.
For no apparent genuine reason "why can't we all just get along" and world peace must be left behind as a naïve relic of 20th century idealism, but couldn't we still try for a lower standard like "why can't we all just not kill children"?
posted by XMLicious at 1:49 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
For no apparent genuine reason "why can't we all just get along" and world peace must be left behind as a naïve relic of 20th century idealism, but couldn't we still try for a lower standard like "why can't we all just not kill children"?
posted by XMLicious at 1:49 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
" ...how on earth does the death of children via drone attack justify or excuse targeting and killing more children?"
"if you think the Taliban needed drone attacks as an excuse for this, you don't know what you are talking about. If you insist on it, you're verging on being an apologist."
THIS!
posted by Vibrissae at 1:52 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
"if you think the Taliban needed drone attacks as an excuse for this, you don't know what you are talking about. If you insist on it, you're verging on being an apologist."
THIS!
posted by Vibrissae at 1:52 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
There's a lot more, about what the pre-2001 Taliban did.
and this
During the sixties and seventies, the entire Middle East , Central Asia and East Asia were modernizing rapidly. Some societies were heading towards social democracy. Ho Chi Minh admired the American New Deal. But because of cold war craziness, "we" created a new set of radical politics, and that is where we are now. "We" created the right-wing, militarized despots, the lack of civil rights, the bad (madrassa) educations, the lack of social services. All because of imagined cold-war issues. We avoided our natural allies.
Afghanistan (really the whole area, not just the modern political borders) has been a crossroads of empires and conflict forever. Alexander the fucking great couldn't pacify the area and moved on to India as easier to conquer. The only way the Mongolians-the MFing MONGOLIANS- could conquer the region was to kill everyone, make a mountain out of their skulls and move on after creating a desert and then Tamerlane arose out of that vacuum and outdid them for barbarity.
The tribal mentality, the endless blood feuds and revenge cycles have no end short of killing everyone. The US didn't cause this, nor is responsible for the shit show that southwest Asia is still and by becoming so involved in nation building has become part of the cycle, and resorted to the same tactics and mindset (not that it is right to do so, I am making the case it was inevitable). We have very much become the latest great world power to get sucked in to the quagmire that is Afghanistan.
This kind of senseless and ultimately counterproductive attack would have happened without our involvement, but alas, our foreign policy has taken us down this road and we ARE involved, if not responsible. The US has enough blood on it's hand without making us responsible for the actions of our enemies.
Wars are messy, messy things and things like children being killed as part of it are inevitable and a bitter lesson to anyone who thinks it can be done cleanly from 20k feet and a button push from some air conditioned trailer. Which is a damn good reason to try the older American foreign policy proposed by John Adams (IIRC) "To be a friend to liberty everywhere but guardians only of our own".
posted by bartonlong at 2:03 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
and this
During the sixties and seventies, the entire Middle East , Central Asia and East Asia were modernizing rapidly. Some societies were heading towards social democracy. Ho Chi Minh admired the American New Deal. But because of cold war craziness, "we" created a new set of radical politics, and that is where we are now. "We" created the right-wing, militarized despots, the lack of civil rights, the bad (madrassa) educations, the lack of social services. All because of imagined cold-war issues. We avoided our natural allies.
Afghanistan (really the whole area, not just the modern political borders) has been a crossroads of empires and conflict forever. Alexander the fucking great couldn't pacify the area and moved on to India as easier to conquer. The only way the Mongolians-the MFing MONGOLIANS- could conquer the region was to kill everyone, make a mountain out of their skulls and move on after creating a desert and then Tamerlane arose out of that vacuum and outdid them for barbarity.
The tribal mentality, the endless blood feuds and revenge cycles have no end short of killing everyone. The US didn't cause this, nor is responsible for the shit show that southwest Asia is still and by becoming so involved in nation building has become part of the cycle, and resorted to the same tactics and mindset (not that it is right to do so, I am making the case it was inevitable). We have very much become the latest great world power to get sucked in to the quagmire that is Afghanistan.
This kind of senseless and ultimately counterproductive attack would have happened without our involvement, but alas, our foreign policy has taken us down this road and we ARE involved, if not responsible. The US has enough blood on it's hand without making us responsible for the actions of our enemies.
Wars are messy, messy things and things like children being killed as part of it are inevitable and a bitter lesson to anyone who thinks it can be done cleanly from 20k feet and a button push from some air conditioned trailer. Which is a damn good reason to try the older American foreign policy proposed by John Adams (IIRC) "To be a friend to liberty everywhere but guardians only of our own".
posted by bartonlong at 2:03 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
To say WE created this madness is simply not true. One only needs to look up islamic history to know that WE did not create this madness. Just the other day I was reading up on the history of India and though I knew Islamic conquorers did take over many parts of India I was unprepared for the personal accounts of the terrible tortures, rapes and slaughters done in the name of islam written down by some of the people who managed to escape all those centuries ago. The first islamic Terrorist attacks against America literally happened before America was even a country. When Islamic terrorists sanctioned by the King of Tripoli decided to seize an American merchant ship that was merely sailing by, kidnapped the crew, beheaded some of them and asked for ransom for their return all in the name of Islam. Eventually Thomas Jefferson decided to put an end to this madness by asking the government to stop what he thought were just random pirates going after peaceful merchant crewman- only to receive a response to from the King literally telling him that these acts were sanctioned by him because they were infedels. They had also gone after many European ships for centuries before this, but since America was just developing as a country it was still news to that side of the lake. That's when it was realized that these acts were an act of war.. not against America because America barely existed at this point.. just against anyone that wasn't muslim.
It is true that America has done things to keep the situation bad or make it worse, in SOME places but it most certainly did not create this problem. This problem of islamic forced subjugation was here long before America came into existence. And it's important to remember that because a lot of people including the Taliban like to tell themselves that if it weren't for America this problem wouldn't exist. And that is one of the traps that denies both muslims and non-muslims the ability to come up with any appropriate solutions.
posted by rancher at 2:06 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
It is true that America has done things to keep the situation bad or make it worse, in SOME places but it most certainly did not create this problem. This problem of islamic forced subjugation was here long before America came into existence. And it's important to remember that because a lot of people including the Taliban like to tell themselves that if it weren't for America this problem wouldn't exist. And that is one of the traps that denies both muslims and non-muslims the ability to come up with any appropriate solutions.
posted by rancher at 2:06 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Rancher, the USA was engaged in its own wars of subjugation – at that time and for more than a century thereafter. It arguably has the same objective today. The Taliban, on the other hand, have no historical connection to the Barbary Pirates and (as far as I know) don't have any real involvement or objectives outside Afghanistan. Your argument would make a lot more sense if you reversed it and said that wealthy interests in the USA have been backing attacks on Moslems for more than two hundred years.
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:33 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 2:33 PM on December 16, 2014 [6 favorites]
The tribal mentality, the endless blood feuds and revenge cycles have no end short of killing everyone. The US didn't cause this,
The US also isn't the reason that any fuckwit can score a crate of AK-47s and start a People's Front of Judea or an Army of the Self-Righteous. We have Mikhail Kalashnikov to thank for that.
And, the US isn't the reason that many fuckwits DO in fact score some AK's. The Kremlin was in on that action. Beijing was in on that action with the SKS-70. All those Miawists running around, some not far from this excitement.. And lots of money from them that have it, i.e. the Arabian peninsula.
So enough with the hand wringing.
posted by ocschwar at 2:46 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
The news is just terribly, terribly sad lately. God damn it.
[Way too many]
.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 2:47 PM on December 16, 2014
[Way too many]
.
posted by hurdy gurdy girl at 2:47 PM on December 16, 2014
" ...how on earth does the death of children via drone attack justify or excuse targeting and killing more children?"
"if you think the Taliban needed drone attacks as an excuse for this, you don't know what you are talking about. If you insist on it, you're verging on being an apologist."
THIS!
The term "collateral damage" was invented by the Pentagon for TV to talk about when the US military decides to bomb places where they know children are going to be, that is, when they decide to target children. The modern era of "precision" munitions only heightens this point. The missile operators can practically see the women and children they are going to annihilate when they decide to launch.
You know, it's a pretty simple point. You have to decide: is it OK to deliberately children sometimes in war or not? And, yes, shooting a missile at someone when you know children are within the blast radius is still targeting children and, no, it's not an "accident" if you keep on doing it.
Go watch the "Fog of War" where Errol Morris interviews former Sec. of Defense McNamara, who was on Curtis Lemay's team during WWII that designed optimal ways to firebomb cities full of citizens: deliberately burning alive thousands of children. He's totally upfront about saying, Yes, it's OK to kill children sometimes in the service of greater ends.
You guys don't even have the moral courage of Bob McNamara, and that's saying something.
(and this is not even getting into how the US installed the drugdealingest, murderingest, rapiest bunch of warlords in Afghanistan, "the northern alliance" into power to replace the morally repugnant Taliban.)
posted by ennui.bz at 2:51 PM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
"if you think the Taliban needed drone attacks as an excuse for this, you don't know what you are talking about. If you insist on it, you're verging on being an apologist."
THIS!
The term "collateral damage" was invented by the Pentagon for TV to talk about when the US military decides to bomb places where they know children are going to be, that is, when they decide to target children. The modern era of "precision" munitions only heightens this point. The missile operators can practically see the women and children they are going to annihilate when they decide to launch.
You know, it's a pretty simple point. You have to decide: is it OK to deliberately children sometimes in war or not? And, yes, shooting a missile at someone when you know children are within the blast radius is still targeting children and, no, it's not an "accident" if you keep on doing it.
Go watch the "Fog of War" where Errol Morris interviews former Sec. of Defense McNamara, who was on Curtis Lemay's team during WWII that designed optimal ways to firebomb cities full of citizens: deliberately burning alive thousands of children. He's totally upfront about saying, Yes, it's OK to kill children sometimes in the service of greater ends.
You guys don't even have the moral courage of Bob McNamara, and that's saying something.
(and this is not even getting into how the US installed the drugdealingest, murderingest, rapiest bunch of warlords in Afghanistan, "the northern alliance" into power to replace the morally repugnant Taliban.)
posted by ennui.bz at 2:51 PM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
And, yes, shooting a missile at someone when you know children are within the blast radius is still targeting children and, no, it's not an "accident" if you keep on doing it.
If you want to revise the Geneva Conventions and what came before then, go ahead. But the distinction between killing civilians in pursuit of a legitimate military aim, and killing civilians AS your aim, is there. And it's there for a reason.
posted by ocschwar at 3:14 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
If you want to revise the Geneva Conventions and what came before then, go ahead. But the distinction between killing civilians in pursuit of a legitimate military aim, and killing civilians AS your aim, is there. And it's there for a reason.
posted by ocschwar at 3:14 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
You guys don't even have the moral courage of Bob McNamara
"Moral courage" would be a principled refusal to excuse the murder of innocents, not an "upfront" endorsement of the tactic. Do you next want to praise the moral courage of Dick Cheney, who just said this past weekend on a national TV news show that he is OK with a 75%/25% ratio of torture of non-innocents to innocents?
It is beyond wrong, it is obscene, to nod at the planned slaughter of school children and their teachers.
And I missed the part of my comment where I endorsed anyone killing children at all, via drone or bomb or in any other way.
posted by bearwife at 3:17 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
"Moral courage" would be a principled refusal to excuse the murder of innocents, not an "upfront" endorsement of the tactic. Do you next want to praise the moral courage of Dick Cheney, who just said this past weekend on a national TV news show that he is OK with a 75%/25% ratio of torture of non-innocents to innocents?
It is beyond wrong, it is obscene, to nod at the planned slaughter of school children and their teachers.
And I missed the part of my comment where I endorsed anyone killing children at all, via drone or bomb or in any other way.
posted by bearwife at 3:17 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
If you want to revise the Geneva Conventions and what came before then, go ahead. But the distinction between killing civilians in pursuit of a legitimate military aim, and killing civilians AS your aim, is there. And it's there for a reason.
It's funny how you guys pick and choose when the Geneva conventions apply.
And here's the really ugly thing about some of the people this thread, you are really just popping up to say: "See, see, this is why we hate them." As if that were either a smart way to conduct yourselves in a war or a serious moral argument.
posted by ennui.bz at 3:23 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
It's funny how you guys pick and choose when the Geneva conventions apply.
And here's the really ugly thing about some of the people this thread, you are really just popping up to say: "See, see, this is why we hate them." As if that were either a smart way to conduct yourselves in a war or a serious moral argument.
posted by ennui.bz at 3:23 PM on December 16, 2014 [4 favorites]
And I missed the part of my comment where I endorsed anyone killing children at all, via drone or bomb or in any other way.
And I missed the part where my pointing out the fact that the US deliberately targets children to advance it's war aims excuses the Taliban for doing so.
posted by ennui.bz at 3:25 PM on December 16, 2014
And I missed the part where my pointing out the fact that the US deliberately targets children to advance it's war aims excuses the Taliban for doing so.
posted by ennui.bz at 3:25 PM on December 16, 2014
There's something so terrible about the kind of human who can look in the fearful faces of little children and mow them down. It goes against every human instinct. That's a type of cruelty and inhumanity I can never get my head around. Those poor little kids, those poor families - it's heartbreaking. Taliban today, Sand Creek a century and a half ago and a thousand other travesties the world over. Few societies have clean hands. We suck as a species, why can't we get beyond this, or at least leave the kids and animals out of it?
posted by madamjujujive at 3:31 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
posted by madamjujujive at 3:31 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
It's funny how you guys pick and choose when the Geneva conventions apply - posted by ennui.bz
Who is 'you guys?' You make your opinion very clear, but I am not sure what your argument is.
posted by rosswald at 3:59 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Who is 'you guys?' You make your opinion very clear, but I am not sure what your argument is.
posted by rosswald at 3:59 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Aaaaaaaaaand it's back about being the US. In fact, for some, the US is the primary focal point their talking about with this atrocity.
I'm not saying that we can't talk about politics when we're speaking of tragedy, but make sure you put the here and now and the deaths that are occurring at the center—rather than the periphery—of this conversation.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:05 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
I'm not saying that we can't talk about politics when we're speaking of tragedy, but make sure you put the here and now and the deaths that are occurring at the center—rather than the periphery—of this conversation.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 4:05 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
It's funny how you guys pick and choose when the Geneva conventions apply.
You make an implicit case for scrapping them altogether. I'm just giving you the opportunity for making the explicit case.
posted by ocschwar at 4:06 PM on December 16, 2014
You make an implicit case for scrapping them altogether. I'm just giving you the opportunity for making the explicit case.
posted by ocschwar at 4:06 PM on December 16, 2014
And here's the really ugly thing about some of the people this thread, you are really just popping up to say: "See, see, this is why we hate them."
As opposed to you, who are really just popping up to say: "See, see, this is why I hate America." Which, fine, in a lot of contexts, hey, more power to you. But in discussing a Taliban attack on a Pakistani school, you are devoting a significant chunk of time and effort to pillorying Curtis LeMay.
posted by Etrigan at 4:37 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
As opposed to you, who are really just popping up to say: "See, see, this is why I hate America." Which, fine, in a lot of contexts, hey, more power to you. But in discussing a Taliban attack on a Pakistani school, you are devoting a significant chunk of time and effort to pillorying Curtis LeMay.
posted by Etrigan at 4:37 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
I have been away from this for a while, but I would like to comment on all the people who responded to my question about schoolchildren serving in militaries with talk of "child soldiers." I don't think I'm nitpicking to point out that none of your comments or links are about children who attend school, as the victims here did. So -- not schoolchildren.
Apologies for the minor derailment, but it was inane of the Telegraph to say that "the bulk of the students are civilian."
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:35 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Apologies for the minor derailment, but it was inane of the Telegraph to say that "the bulk of the students are civilian."
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:35 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
If I didn't say this was horrific and I grieve for the children who suffered and died, and their parents, and their siblings, I say this now.
The way I feel about the Taliban, I am surprised they used the loss of their women as an excuse. I have Afghani friends who describe the Taliban as animals. I am surprised there was any reason or rationale given for their horrific act, of personal slaughter.
posted by Oyéah at 5:46 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
The way I feel about the Taliban, I am surprised they used the loss of their women as an excuse. I have Afghani friends who describe the Taliban as animals. I am surprised there was any reason or rationale given for their horrific act, of personal slaughter.
posted by Oyéah at 5:46 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
If you want to revise the Geneva Conventions and what came before then, go ahead. But the distinction between killing civilians in pursuit of a legitimate military aim, and killing civilians AS your aim, is there. And it's there for a reason.
Oh, yeah, we would get in so much trouble if our military or our intelligence services or our mercenaries or our allies or the military personnel of our allies we've directly trained violated the Geneva Conventions. Good thing they're there to keep us in check and hewing to the highest ethical standards for the use of force.
posted by XMLicious at 6:09 PM on December 16, 2014
This is just so unspeakably horrible.
.
posted by homunculus at 6:16 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
.
posted by homunculus at 6:16 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
Things actually would be worse without the Geneva Conventions. It's worth remembering that the CIA ran the torture program because the US military refused to do so; as bad as it was, imagine if it were standard operating procedure.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:22 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:22 PM on December 16, 2014 [2 favorites]
The US Military outsources its torture to Pakistan and elsewhere.
just popping up to say: "See, see, this is why I hate America."
I don't think objecting to killing innocent children, rescue workers, and funeral mourners is hating America. Quite the opposite, actually.
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:35 PM on December 16, 2014
just popping up to say: "See, see, this is why I hate America."
I don't think objecting to killing innocent children, rescue workers, and funeral mourners is hating America. Quite the opposite, actually.
posted by Golden Eternity at 6:35 PM on December 16, 2014
I don't think objecting to killing innocent children, rescue workers, and funeral mourners is hating America.
You are defending someone who called objecting to killing innocent Pakistani children as "really just popping up to say: 'See, see, this is why we hate them.'" and calling that "the really ugly thing". Someone whose contributions to this thread -- which, as I noted in the rest of the comment you apparently didn't bother to read, is about the Taliban killing Pakistani children -- are running about 90 percent AMERICA DOES IT TOO ONLY WORSE. Tell me what fuels that if it's not a knee-jerk hatred.
posted by Etrigan at 7:02 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
You are defending someone who called objecting to killing innocent Pakistani children as "really just popping up to say: 'See, see, this is why we hate them.'" and calling that "the really ugly thing". Someone whose contributions to this thread -- which, as I noted in the rest of the comment you apparently didn't bother to read, is about the Taliban killing Pakistani children -- are running about 90 percent AMERICA DOES IT TOO ONLY WORSE. Tell me what fuels that if it's not a knee-jerk hatred.
posted by Etrigan at 7:02 PM on December 16, 2014 [3 favorites]
Oh, yeah, we would get in so much trouble if our military or our intelligence services or our mercenaries or our allies or the military personnel of our allies we've directly trained violated the Geneva Conventions
It's not just about us.
A world where conventional armies battle it out is less brutal than a world where militias like AQ, ISIS, or for that matter the Tamil Tigers, et cetera, are given the same legitimacy. Of course, in the safety of the continental United States, the difference to one's daily life is nil.
The rest of the world is not as lucky.
posted by ocschwar at 7:15 PM on December 16, 2014
It's not just about us.
A world where conventional armies battle it out is less brutal than a world where militias like AQ, ISIS, or for that matter the Tamil Tigers, et cetera, are given the same legitimacy. Of course, in the safety of the continental United States, the difference to one's daily life is nil.
The rest of the world is not as lucky.
posted by ocschwar at 7:15 PM on December 16, 2014
A world where conventional armies battle it out is less brutal than a world where militias like AQ, ISIS, or for that matter the Tamil Tigers, et cetera, are given the same legitimacy.
If there were a conventional war, in Europe let's say, the amassed combined fire from thousands of Howitzers and other heavy artillery, with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of troops, and massive bombing campaigns would be more brutal not less. We would be talking about hundreds of thousands or more probably millions of innocent people being killed... and it probably wouldn't stay conventional for very long.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:23 PM on December 16, 2014
If there were a conventional war, in Europe let's say, the amassed combined fire from thousands of Howitzers and other heavy artillery, with tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of troops, and massive bombing campaigns would be more brutal not less. We would be talking about hundreds of thousands or more probably millions of innocent people being killed... and it probably wouldn't stay conventional for very long.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:23 PM on December 16, 2014
Things actually would be worse without the Geneva Conventions. It's worth remembering that the CIA ran the torture program because the US military refused to do so; as bad as it was, imagine if it were standard operating procedure.
Is being a party to the Geneva Conventions the thing that actually causes the U.S. military to only do things like indefinitely imprison members of opposing forces without trial, though? Just taking a quick look on Wikipedia, a couple of the places we dropped people off to be tortured by locals appear to be parties to more GC Protocol amendments than the U.S. is.
In any case, it's ridiculous bullshit and dissembling to suggest that we would have to renegotiate the Geneva Conventions before we could spare any effort to think about which multiple of a thousand percent civilian casualties is ethical in the course of achieving the military objective of killing people who, as ennui.bz points out, we're often already defining as "unlawful enemy combatants" so as to excuse ourselves from complying with some GC provisions anyways.
We are not inexorably forced by the vicissitudes of realpolitik and by the harsh realities of war to passively accept an unavoidable number of child fatalities that hurt us more than it hurts them. We choose a number we're willing to accept, with tolerances, and pull the trigger when estimates fall within that range. That number should be zero and we should not stick our heads in the sand or do mental gymnastics to pretend that we aren't even making the choice.
posted by XMLicious at 7:37 PM on December 16, 2014 [1 favorite]
oschwar, I don't even know what you're trying to say there. Why is it that our Egyptian torturers and our Polish torturers should be legitimate, or our trainees at the School of the Americas, or the militias we decide we like in any given decade, or the countries who we temporarily remove from the State Department's State Sponsors of Terror list so that we can sell anthrax and weapons to, should be legitimate but not the rest? Who gets lucky from those things, why do you think our application of force and violence revolves around conventional armies battling, and what does any of that have to do with it being okay to kill children to further "American interests"?
posted by XMLicious at 7:38 PM on December 16, 2014
posted by XMLicious at 7:38 PM on December 16, 2014
Chelsea Manning is in prison for, among other things, revealing the army's estimate of death from the Iraq war. This is from the Wikipedia response to Iraqi war death. Army said 4-5000 American deaths. Around 15,000 Iraqi men. Around 22,000 enemy combatants. 109,000 deaths of Iraqis. These numbers imply 72,000 other Iraqi civilians died. But new, respectible surveys put the number of Iraqi dead at 500,000. By my poor math skills, I know the Army, the US knows how many Americans died. I don't know how they calculated the enemy deaths, or the allied Iraqi deaths, but a whole lot of civilians died, and are still dying from the depredations, deprivations, and toxic effects of this ongoing conflict.
The death all around the two ongoing, now three ongoing conflicts is horrfic. This just doean't just go away when the last bullet drops into the dirt. The harm goes on for generations. We as a nation are responsible for what we do, we have to stop our part in the harming. War is an addiction, a thrill. Imagine for a moment as you reach for your ED remedy, people, rabid with bloodlust kill for pleasure, and have some amazing aphrodisiac on board, they rape unwilling victims, who fight. War and revenge are highly addictive. Those fighters enjoyed what they did when they killed the school children. They fought for hours and died imagining a place in heaven.
There is a story in the NY Times today about a US deserter, who was depressed and couldn't get to war fast enough, so he joined the French Foreign Legion to save his life from suicide. He just came home after four years and turned himself in. Apparently nothing is more stimulatimg. Is that one of the secrets of the whole situation?
posted by Oyéah at 7:46 PM on December 16, 2014
The death all around the two ongoing, now three ongoing conflicts is horrfic. This just doean't just go away when the last bullet drops into the dirt. The harm goes on for generations. We as a nation are responsible for what we do, we have to stop our part in the harming. War is an addiction, a thrill. Imagine for a moment as you reach for your ED remedy, people, rabid with bloodlust kill for pleasure, and have some amazing aphrodisiac on board, they rape unwilling victims, who fight. War and revenge are highly addictive. Those fighters enjoyed what they did when they killed the school children. They fought for hours and died imagining a place in heaven.
There is a story in the NY Times today about a US deserter, who was depressed and couldn't get to war fast enough, so he joined the French Foreign Legion to save his life from suicide. He just came home after four years and turned himself in. Apparently nothing is more stimulatimg. Is that one of the secrets of the whole situation?
posted by Oyéah at 7:46 PM on December 16, 2014
Taliban and aligned Pashtun are fools. The formula is around 500 years old by now - the government pushes and pushes and then those pushed lash back with something truly horrific as a "lesson" or "revenge." The government then responds with systematic containment and eradication - tiny little acts of horror, in untold myriads, and no-one really cares, because of the large horrific act committed in their name. There will be no Pashtun on the Pakistan side of the Durand Line in twenty years, they keep that up, which may actually be the ISI's long game. There are ways to fight back, this is not an effective one. Kind of the opposite.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:28 PM on December 16, 2014
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:28 PM on December 16, 2014
The Taliban authored their end note with this act, at least in Pakistan, wouldn't you think?
posted by Oyéah at 9:01 PM on December 16, 2014
posted by Oyéah at 9:01 PM on December 16, 2014
Joe in Australia: Your statement makes no sense since like I already mentioned, America did not even exist during that time. Islamic subjugation of the "infidel" was around before America was even "discovered".
posted by rancher at 9:03 PM on December 16, 2014
posted by rancher at 9:03 PM on December 16, 2014
Muslims were landowners in America before Columbus came by. Anthropologists estimate there were 15 million Americans of many kinds when Colombus arrived. He didn't discover anything. Read the Anderson Rolls, Ishmaels, and Mohammeds lived on the Gulf Coast. People use religion as a rationalization for evildoing routinely, people of all religions.
Bless the souls of the children, and their families.
posted by Oyéah at 9:14 PM on December 16, 2014
Bless the souls of the children, and their families.
posted by Oyéah at 9:14 PM on December 16, 2014
Rancher, I think you're a bit confused about history.
From your message above:
1) "The first islamic Terrorist attacks against America literally happened before America was even a country."
No. There were attacks against British ships, some of which may have come from Britain's colonies in America; I have no idea. In any event, Britain had an effective peace treaty with the Barbary States from 1682 onwards, which would have included the British colonies.
2) "Eventually Thomas Jefferson decided to put an end to this madness by asking the government to stop what he thought were just random pirates going after peaceful merchant crewman- only to receive a response to from the King literally telling him that these acts were sanctioned by him because they were infedels."
Thomas Jefferson was not an idiot. He and everyone else knew that the corsairs were sanctioned by the Barbary States. This is why he went to London, to meet with the Ambassador of the Pasha (not "king") of Tripoli: he wanted to negotiate a peace treaty.
3) "That's when it was realized that these acts were an act of war.. not against America because America barely existed at this point.. just against anyone that wasn't muslim."
America "barely existed" at a time when it had won the Revolutionary War against Great Britain and was about to build its first navy?
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:31 PM on December 16, 2014
From your message above:
1) "The first islamic Terrorist attacks against America literally happened before America was even a country."
No. There were attacks against British ships, some of which may have come from Britain's colonies in America; I have no idea. In any event, Britain had an effective peace treaty with the Barbary States from 1682 onwards, which would have included the British colonies.
2) "Eventually Thomas Jefferson decided to put an end to this madness by asking the government to stop what he thought were just random pirates going after peaceful merchant crewman- only to receive a response to from the King literally telling him that these acts were sanctioned by him because they were infedels."
Thomas Jefferson was not an idiot. He and everyone else knew that the corsairs were sanctioned by the Barbary States. This is why he went to London, to meet with the Ambassador of the Pasha (not "king") of Tripoli: he wanted to negotiate a peace treaty.
3) "That's when it was realized that these acts were an act of war.. not against America because America barely existed at this point.. just against anyone that wasn't muslim."
America "barely existed" at a time when it had won the Revolutionary War against Great Britain and was about to build its first navy?
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:31 PM on December 16, 2014
Muslims were landowners in America before Columbus came by.
No, they were not.
Read the Anderson Rolls,
The what now?
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:33 PM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
No, they were not.
Read the Anderson Rolls,
The what now?
posted by Joe in Australia at 9:33 PM on December 16, 2014 [5 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, maybe try to focus on this tragedy and analysis of the actual situation in Pakistan with some amount of sensitivity rather than a) making it all about the US, b) using a horrific event and emotional thread as an excuse to fight about anyone's favorite hobbyhorse, c) making jokes about "muslin," or any other gallows humor stuff, which as we've established many times is not a universally appreciated coping mechanism when you are in a public discussion. Just generally please try not to be awful here.
posted by taz (staff) at 11:02 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 11:02 PM on December 16, 2014 [7 favorites]
The survivor accounts on the BBC News website are horrific. And I am ashamed that it took me until the end of the article to realise that in order to get those accounts, journalists were in hospitals asking injured children what it was like to see their classmates murdered in front of them, which seems pretty awful too.
posted by Catseye at 4:22 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Catseye at 4:22 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
Muslims were landowners in America before Columbus came by.
You're going to have to back that up.
posted by oceanjesse at 4:24 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
You're going to have to back that up.
posted by oceanjesse at 4:24 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
America "barely existed" at a time when it had won the Revolutionary War against Great Britain and was about to build its first navy?
I'm not seeing your problem with that statement. America (and I presume this means the US nation, not the continent or continents) was 7 years old when the Treaty of Paris was signed and was still 4 years away from writing its Constitution. So yes, the nation "barely existed" at the end of the war.
posted by dances with hamsters at 5:40 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
I'm not seeing your problem with that statement. America (and I presume this means the US nation, not the continent or continents) was 7 years old when the Treaty of Paris was signed and was still 4 years away from writing its Constitution. So yes, the nation "barely existed" at the end of the war.
posted by dances with hamsters at 5:40 AM on December 17, 2014 [1 favorite]
Mod note: Please drop this weird derail now.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:04 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 6:04 AM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
A graphic story on HuffPo. Apparently some of the female teachers were burned alive. This ordeal went on for 9 hours.
No words, not even atrocity, suffice.
posted by bearwife at 8:06 AM on December 17, 2014
No words, not even atrocity, suffice.
posted by bearwife at 8:06 AM on December 17, 2014
Behind Pakistan’s Taliban War
Khan has been forced to call off looming nationwide protests against the sitting government. In the longer term, Khan's apparent soft spot for Pakistan's Taliban and affiliated groups make him an uncomfortable partner for the Pakistani military. This, in turn, reduces Khan's ability to put pressure on Nawaz Sharif's government or to portray himself as a viable candidate for prime minister in the near future.posted by Golden Eternity at 8:51 AM on December 17, 2014
Read the Anderson Rolls, which is the oldest set of Native American names and property holders. The Dawes Rolls are the more commonly accessed "Indian Rolls," for purposes of establishin Native American ancestry.
posted by Oyéah at 12:30 PM on December 17, 2014
posted by Oyéah at 12:30 PM on December 17, 2014
Muslims were landowners in America before Columbus came by
In case anyone missed it, this specific claim was in the news recently.
posted by rosswald at 12:49 PM on December 17, 2014
In case anyone missed it, this specific claim was in the news recently.
posted by rosswald at 12:49 PM on December 17, 2014
From bearwife's link, one of the surviving kids: "When I grow up, I will destroy their world, I will destroy their children -- I won't let them be."
Christ. I don't doubt you. This seems to be what we do best.
posted by brundlefly at 1:22 PM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
Christ. I don't doubt you. This seems to be what we do best.
posted by brundlefly at 1:22 PM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
This is what we have to stop doing. No more vengeance, no more eye for an eye, just no more killing. If we (the human race, that is) don't make a deliberate decision to stop, the atrocities will just go on and on, perpetuating themselves forever. Violence really is a disease.
posted by Kevin Street at 4:17 PM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Kevin Street at 4:17 PM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
I can't find anything on the web about the "Anderson Rolls". Even searching for it in quotes on Google reveals stuff like a Rolls-Royce dealership in a place called Anderson, or someone named Anderson who rolled into the semifinals, or a company called Anderson which rolled out a new line of brass valves. Searching for it in quotes and then adding "muslim" or "islam" or "indian" doesn't help.
"Dawes Rolls" can easily be found on the web, but seem to be a census-like thing that was created barely a hundred years ago, more than four hundred years after Columbus came to the Americas.
I found a searchable database of names in the Dawes Rolls, but I'm not sure what name I should be searching for as evidence for this claim, nor am I even sure how such a name would be evidence in the first place (as it was compiled 400 years after Columbus). But searching Google for "Dawes Rolls" and "Muslim" leads me to this short post on a genealogical website written by someone who says they're both Cherokee and Muslim (which I have no reason to doubt). They go on to claim that contact between Muslims and Native Americans began about a thousand years ago (which, to be honest, I do have some reason to doubt).
As evidence, they say "Treaties such as Peace and Friendship that was signed on the Delaware River in the year 1787 bear the signatures of Abdel-Khak and Muhammad Ibn Abdullah", and "If you have access to records in the state of South Carolina, read the Moors Sundry Act of 1790."
Now, there was a treaty called the Treaty of Peace and Friendship that was ratified by the Congress of the Confederation in 1787. I don't know for sure that it was on the Delaware River, but it sounds plausible at least; the Congress of the Confederation did meet there (in Philadelphia) in 1787. And it was, in fact, approved by someone named Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, and someone named (something close to) Abdel-Khak was also involved.
This treaty, however, was between the United States and Morocco. "Abdel-Khak", I assume, is a reference to Taher Ben Abdelhack Fennish, who was a servant of the Sultan of Morocco who was involved in making an addendum to the treaty. And the Muhammad Ibn Abdullah who approved the treaty was none other than the Sultan of Morocco himself.
The other treaty which the post tells us to look into, South Carolina's Moors Sundry Act of 1790, was an agreement between South Carolina and Morocco.
Frankly, this claim seems absurd on its face, and searching the web a little for information on it makes it seem even more so, but can you please link to anything that you consider to be evidence for it? Thanks.
posted by Flunkie at 4:24 PM on December 17, 2014 [7 favorites]
"Dawes Rolls" can easily be found on the web, but seem to be a census-like thing that was created barely a hundred years ago, more than four hundred years after Columbus came to the Americas.
I found a searchable database of names in the Dawes Rolls, but I'm not sure what name I should be searching for as evidence for this claim, nor am I even sure how such a name would be evidence in the first place (as it was compiled 400 years after Columbus). But searching Google for "Dawes Rolls" and "Muslim" leads me to this short post on a genealogical website written by someone who says they're both Cherokee and Muslim (which I have no reason to doubt). They go on to claim that contact between Muslims and Native Americans began about a thousand years ago (which, to be honest, I do have some reason to doubt).
As evidence, they say "Treaties such as Peace and Friendship that was signed on the Delaware River in the year 1787 bear the signatures of Abdel-Khak and Muhammad Ibn Abdullah", and "If you have access to records in the state of South Carolina, read the Moors Sundry Act of 1790."
Now, there was a treaty called the Treaty of Peace and Friendship that was ratified by the Congress of the Confederation in 1787. I don't know for sure that it was on the Delaware River, but it sounds plausible at least; the Congress of the Confederation did meet there (in Philadelphia) in 1787. And it was, in fact, approved by someone named Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, and someone named (something close to) Abdel-Khak was also involved.
This treaty, however, was between the United States and Morocco. "Abdel-Khak", I assume, is a reference to Taher Ben Abdelhack Fennish, who was a servant of the Sultan of Morocco who was involved in making an addendum to the treaty. And the Muhammad Ibn Abdullah who approved the treaty was none other than the Sultan of Morocco himself.
The other treaty which the post tells us to look into, South Carolina's Moors Sundry Act of 1790, was an agreement between South Carolina and Morocco.
Frankly, this claim seems absurd on its face, and searching the web a little for information on it makes it seem even more so, but can you please link to anything that you consider to be evidence for it? Thanks.
posted by Flunkie at 4:24 PM on December 17, 2014 [7 favorites]
Ugh. This picture really got to me.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:05 PM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:05 PM on December 17, 2014 [2 favorites]
Yesterday - Indian schools hold 2 min silence for the Peshawar massacre.
Today - Pakistan's Anti-Terror Court releases chief accused for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks on bail, to widespread smirking from right-wing hawks who were horrified at Indian liberals yesterday. Says Jammu and Kashmir CM Omar Abdullah:
posted by vanar sena at 5:49 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
Today - Pakistan's Anti-Terror Court releases chief accused for the 26/11 Mumbai attacks on bail, to widespread smirking from right-wing hawks who were horrified at Indian liberals yesterday. Says Jammu and Kashmir CM Omar Abdullah:
Amazing what a short shelf life the #IndiawithPakistan sentiment had. Thank you to the courts in Pakistan for putting us in our place.Who the fuck knows what lessons were learnt.
posted by vanar sena at 5:49 AM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
Protest at Lal Masjid mosque in Islamabad. Oh, I hope it gets larger.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:36 AM on December 18, 2014
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:36 AM on December 18, 2014
A poignant article in today's NY Times describes the burial of the school principal, a woman, saying it was a great honor for a village to have a school principal come from there. The article revealed some sentiments that resonated with me.
posted by Oyéah at 5:06 PM on December 18, 2014
posted by Oyéah at 5:06 PM on December 18, 2014
(Reuters) - Since 2001 the United States has tried virtually every strategy available to persuade Pakistan's army to take the threat of militancy more seriously, but 12 years and $28 billion in aid later, all the American approaches are widely viewed as having failed.
posted by rosswald at 8:33 PM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
posted by rosswald at 8:33 PM on December 18, 2014 [2 favorites]
Rosswald: that article assumes that "militancy" is some sort of criminal element that has not been sufficiently repressed by the government and army of Pakistan. Surely this isn't the case: some "militants" operate with the connivance of the army; some with the support of the army, and some are the army itself. The USA knows this - remember where Osama bin Laden was hiding out, and the subterfuges the USA used to attack him without alerting the Pakistanis? I have no idea why the USA pretends that Pakistan is a friend and ally; you've spent hundreds of billions (trillions?) attacking Afghanistan from Pakistan, when the opposite would have made just as much sense.
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:57 PM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
posted by Joe in Australia at 10:57 PM on December 18, 2014 [4 favorites]
I have no idea why the USA pretends that Pakistan is a friend and ally
The nukes.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:03 PM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
The nukes.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:03 PM on December 18, 2014 [3 favorites]
How Pakistan Drifted Away from Itself
On Jinnah’s Day, Don’t Side With His Enemies
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:29 AM on December 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
On Jinnah’s Day, Don’t Side With His Enemies
posted by Golden Eternity at 8:29 AM on December 26, 2014 [1 favorite]
The real war is the war of narrative
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:35 AM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:35 AM on December 27, 2014 [1 favorite]
« Older This was not planned. | Everyone is poised to attack anyone. But it's all... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:32 AM on December 16, 2014 [25 favorites]