"As soon as the firing started, we ran to our classrooms. They were entering every class and they were killing the children... Then I saw children falling down who were crying and screaming. I also fell down. I learned later that I have got a bullet... All the children had bullet wounds. All the children were bleeding...."
ADDED: "The Taliban has killed dozens of children at a Peshawar school in a revenge mission for Pakistani schoolgirl activist Malala Yousafzai being awarded the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize."
AND: "They burnt a teacher in front of the students in a classroom.... They literally set the teacher on fire with gasoline and made the kids watch."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
86 comments:
They say they did this for revenge but I think "specific intent" is the Taliban's moral failing.
Muslim terrorist are the scourge of the modern world.
People worried about Bush and Cheney's use of so-called low level torture? HAH! They just got answers they needed quickly from murderers that were not covered by any rules of war.
We are at war with the Muslim world folks.
They will kill anyone, children included, for their 'cause'.
And they use REAL torture.
It's just their culture. #waronculture.
Ban high-capacity Islam. Fuck it, ban all Muzzies.
Now remember, if we catch any of these assholes, we must make sure we give them the same rights we give our innocent citizens.....
At some point we are going to realize that we need to mount a crusade, secular or otherwise.
The spiritual world is going wild in the last days. and Allah is really mad at his useless Muslims who may bow down and submit to him 5 times a day but still who don't kill infidels with suicide attacks. They're are just hypocrites.
Now, now ..lets not get all Islamophobic about this.
I'm sure CAIR will be setting us straight later today.
A pack of lone wolves, surely!
Not Islam, surely!
Ban settlements in the West Bank, surely!
Ban Nobel Prizes, surely!
The muslim woman behind the "ridewithme" anti-(nonexistent)backlash campaign in Australia:
I'm learning about hate because I am coming to hate you, white person.
...
I'm struggling with my mental illness because I am angry.
But not very creative.
My God. I hope none of the poor darlings get a bucket of water poured over their faces as a result in the effort to prevent further attacks and round up those responsible. I don't think I could bear the grief.
The solution is brutal, but necessary. Terrorists, those that do business with them, or support them, must be killed. We'd do the same, if they were a pack of feral dogs.
One father has gotten the point:
'This is a terrible injustice. We are innocent people, by boys are innocents who do not carry guns and bombs. The only justice for me is to find these people who are supporting extremists and hang them in rows. Make them die for what they did.
"the "ridewithme" anti-(nonexistent)backlash campaign"
My goodness, what a raving loon that woman is.
More inclusive actions by the religion of peace.
This is the same as the GOP not passing a budget in October last year. Exactly. The. Same.
This is the death knell for multiculturalism. If killing schoolchildren, as just happened in Pakistan and happened a few years back when the Chechen Muslims attacked a Russian school, then there is no such thing as evil.
If raping schoolgirls, as happened in England and apparently still happening in Scandinavian countries isn't evil then there is no such thing as evil.
Great site!
In the meantime, the Germans are marching against Islamization and getting in trouble for it. Crazy world we live in.
http://janetheactuary.blogspot.com/2014/12/whats-going-on-in-germany-not-black.html
Yea, I don't trust Liz Warren to deal with Islamic terrorism. She will never be president. Neither will Hillghazi.
The victims of Islamic extremists are mostly other Muslims.
If we knew this attack was going to be carried out but had to waterboard a high level member of ISIS to get the info, would we do it? Or is it better to let the attack go forward so we don't dirty our hands?
Or rather, suppose we capture a high level member of al Qaeda/ISIS/Taliban and it came out that such an attack was imminent. And we had good reason to believe that he had info relevant to this attack, so we might be able to prevent it. waterboard him? Or let the attack go forward.
All I can say is, if it were me, I'd put the kids lives above the discomfort of the terrorist.
The most ruthless system wins. That's why they're in the stone age.
It's a stable political system.
We can get there from here, too. Elect more Obamas.
Not in a game in Pakistan at all, tragically.
But it is a game right now in the current Democrat senate.
I'm rereading Berlin Diary by William Shirer. How difficult it was for people to learn what Hitler intended though he wrote it in Mein Kampf which sold a lot of copies and though people in Germany like Shirer understood sooner. But even after he invaded France the French Army listened to German and Communist propaganda to the effect that this was not their war. So that French Army did not fight, thinking that the soldiers would then go home and their government would make a deal with the Germans.
But the Nazis then sent most of the soldiers they actually got to surrender as slave POWs into Germany to work there for the rest of the war. Then they finally understood how the Nazis intended to lead Europe. And similarly the Russians came to understand that Hitler intended to wipe out the Slavs - after he invaded Russia despite the Russian German pact.
And something like this will be the consequence for us if Obama and Elizabeth Warren get their way with defense budgets.
Hey voters, please prove you're not robots
rhhardin said...
The most ruthless system wins. That's why they're in the stone age.
It's a stable political system.
True, since it has persisted throughout most of human (pre)history.
We can get there from here, too. Elect more Obamas.
Although Obola exemplifies its worst, most self-destructive aspects, I don't see any reason to think that western/Euro/Anglosphere "liberal" democracy is a stable system.
Remember, Romney said we can't negotiate with the Taliban.
The Obama administration said we must negotiate with the Taliban.
Time magazine called Romney's position "extreme."
WHERE IS JACK BAUER WHEN WE NEED HIM?
Screw the 'waterbording'.
We are at war with terrorist who have no country, no state, and thus no Geneva protection.
We don't need Obama drones.. we need live captives to find out who, what, when, where... so we can stop these monsters.
Its all about who has the power.
This is a demonstration by one side that the other side can't protect its own.
Its also interesting that the Pak military is factionalized, with a lot of it playing on the same team as some of the Taliban.
Its telling that the attackers seem to have used inside contacts to get past security. They were also posing as policemen, with the uniforms, etc.
Pakistan has little effective central authority and the fallout of this is likely to reduce that, if the military ends up even more factional, as is likely.
I blame Obomba.
Coexist people! These people need empathy.
They seem shocked that the Taliban would literally burn someone alive in front of kids. The same Taliban shot a girl in the face for wanting to go to school. ISIS saws journalists heads off on camera. Why are people so shocked in this day and age at their barbarity?
Has Glen Kessler fact-checked this story? Or is he only interested in Dick Cheney?
I wouldn't be so quick to beatify Malala. She gave $50,000 of her nobel prize money to UNRWA to help rebuild Palestinian schools in Gaza. Hamas runs the schools in Gaza and their primary objective is to indoctrinate children in Jew-hatred.
Another banner day for the religion of peace.
Hey! I know. Let's invite more of these lunatics into our country! What's the worse that could happen?
Apologists and those who believe we can empathize with radical islam are a clear and present danger to the security of the U.S. and every other western culture. Know your enemy!
Paul said ...
"We are at war with the Muslim world folks."
Not so. The Muslim world is at war with us. But the Commander in Chief of our military thinks the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the World's sweetest sounds".
My local paper, the Phila Inquirer, has its head in the sand like most good libruls. I.E. today's edition has the Australia hostage story on Page A-6
But it covers the social media aspects of the story on Page D-1!
What a bunch of abject assholes.
If you find yourself is a street-fight .....?????????
Sounds like we need to topple the government in Islamabad and put 50,000 troops in northwestern Pakistan. I mean, how can Americans sleep safely at night knowing that these people are out there in the world? Oh wait, this has nothing to do with us, and we'll go on living our lives as if nothing happened. Just like the other thousands upon thousands of horrible things that occur in this world every day.
Sadism and planning.
Revenant will be along shortly to explain why it was wrong not to take these "alleged" gunman into custody (the cost of respondents lives is irrelevant since they are probably volunteers) and give them a fair trial with some wonderful hot meals and perhaps one or two turns in "The Comfy Chair" along the way.
Anything less would be a betrayal of civilized behavior.
Oh yes. Quite quite.
Drago:
The key religious issue is that the "planning" and communication were done in a "back alley" (i.e. public space). Apparently, the Taliban are not familiar with pro-choice tenets.
The problem here, as it relates to us in western countries, is that we are importing these people and their culture, which has a strong tendency towards this sort of behavior. So we can expect that, if enough of them live in our societies, similar atrocities will be directed at us, here, as they have been towards their enemies in Pakistan, or their neighbors wherever they live, in Russia or Kenya, or the Philippines. And thats exactly what's been happening. The sheer volume of this is hard to grasp if you don't pay attention, its just more spectacular stuff like this that breaks into the usual news.
And, BTW, this is not new at all. In my old country there have been constant raids and outrages for 400 years. There are archeological sites of fortifications built to defend against them.
Warning
We will clearly show it to you at the very time and places “The Interview” be shown, including the premiere, how bitter fate those who seek fun in terror should be doomed to.
Soon all the world will see what an awful movie Sony Pictures Entertainment has made.
The world will be full of fear.
Remember the 11th of September 2001.
We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time.
(If your house is nearby, you’d better leave.)
Whatever comes in the coming days is called by the greed of Sony Pictures Entertainment.
All the world will denounce the SONY.
Nah but Darth Cheney is TEH REEL EVAL MAN!
BTW I have a ticket to see The Interview on Dec 24!
Shove it Norks!
Did they water board anyone?
@David, no, but they burned a female teacher to death. Does that count?
"So we can expect that, if enough of them live in our societies, similar atrocities will be directed at us, here, as they have been towards their enemies in Pakistan, or their neighbors wherever they live, in Russia or Kenya, or the Philippines."
Yeah. And we will retaliate by giving them welfare, food stamps, and section 8 vouchers, so they don't have to hold down a job while they plan their next atrocity. Oh, and Obamaphones. They're going to need phones, you know.
It'd didn't occur on the veld, but doesn't Rule 303 still apply?
"Or is it better to let the attack go forward so we don't dirty our hands?"
I think that's the key. I appreciate the practical drawbacks to torture, but when the moral dimension is allowed to short-circuit the discussion we're perilously close to Henry L. Stimson dismissing international espionage with "Gentlemen don't read one another's mail."
"is it better to let the attack go forward so we don't dirty our hands?"
You wouldn't want Freder to feel bad about himself, would you?
The gun control laws in Pakistan could use a little tweaking.
I'm sure happy none of the perps were waterboarded.
Our van always parked a few hundred meters away from the school. We then went to our van. The van driver told us that our school fellows who have been murdered in the attack are martyrs and they would go to jannah (paradise).
So, this is a good thing?
It's okay. Not like they said they opposed gay marriage or anything heinous like that.
As LTC Tom Kratman says, if you are going to a gunfight bring a gun; if you are going to a religious war, bring a religion. we are in a war to the death with Islam, which must end with Islam ruling the world or it being destroyed. the only good Mooselimb is a dead Mooselimb.
Hillary says we need to empathize with our enemies (like the taliban)
I'm thinking of a slogan:
"Dealing with Islam: We got it right the first time!"
Let's put Obama in charge. He will make sure none of our values are violated.
Who cares about children of soldiers ?
No one has the brutality to match the brutality of these barbarians. What it would take would be a willingness to destroy one village for every child killed. And that would not mean burning down the buildings and destroying the crops but actually laying waste to all the inhabitants as well. Including the children. But you would not destroy villages that were near each other. You would leave those villages nearby to think about how they might deal with the Taliban if they came calling or if they live in their midst or if they came for supplies. This is the way lessons were taught in the ancient days in this very region of the world. The Taliban would disappear in short order.
Indiscriminate murder and torture of men, women, and children, that has no other purpose than to terrorize a population and to abort the progeny of competing interests.
I'm fairly confident that there's a law that covers this. Could we have a comment by our hostess, an expert on the subject of law and the settlement of issues?
I suggest that we urge Attorney General Holder to offer the services of the FBI to apprehend the people who did this. Isn't that the way civilized people handle these disputes?
Before we jump to conclusions, is there a statute that criminalizes burning teachers? In Pakistan?
"I'm fairly confident that there's a law that covers this."
I believe it is called "The Law of Unintended Consequences."
Obama cuts and runs and Voilia !
I think we should have left Afghanistan years ago but Obama has demonstrated how not to do it.
Pakistan has been playing a double game and they may have second thoughts today but Obama is not the reason.
Meanwhile back at Rape Central in Chancellorsville the really important issues are being covered.
My last line in that old post.
"Then, if things deteriorate, Pakistan may become the target instead of Afghanistan."
Welcome to the future, Pakistan !
Please be careful when referring to these people as barbarians. If you are in academia you will probably find yourself apologizing for lacking the sensitivity to appreciate the the differences between the rape culture on American college campuses and the purer motives of the indigenous people of Pakistan.
Trigger warning: in other countries students get shot in the head and teachers burned. AT U of M you get fired for making fun of liberals. http://reason.com/blog/2014/12/15/social-justice-bandits-vandalize-apartme
One day we will realize that Islam is a bigger threat than fascism ever was. Islam has been attacking our civilization for literally a thousand years. Then things are going to get very ugly.
RIP
We'll have peace when the last Taliban is strangled with the entrails of the last Wahhabi imam.
I suggest that we urge Attorney General Holder to offer the services of the FBI...
...right after they catch the mujahs behind Benghazi.
Not to worry! After we swear off waterboarding, they'll start behaving much better.
"Now remember, if we catch any of these assholes, we must make sure we give them the same rights we give our innocent citizens....."
This statement shows you haven't the slightest understanding of our Constitution.
"People worried about Bush and Cheney's use of so-called low level torture? HAH! They just got answers they needed quickly from murderers that were not covered by any rules of war."
Actually, this is not so. They got a lot of noise, and there's no evidence any terrorist attacks against us were thwarted as a result of our torture program.
Actually, this is not so. They got a lot of noise, and there's no evidence any terrorist attacks against us were thwarted as a result of our torture program.
Lack of data points is construed as a result in view of prior data.
I'll spell it out: it looks effective because fewer attacks occurred despite (and especially because of) subsequent threats from sundry Middle Eastern shit holes.
Your problem Cook (in a nutshell) is that you don't believe in evil. It's always some oppressed tribesman, some طالبان, or some irate Austrian pushing back at "The Man."
Visualize World Appeasement
Your problem Cook (in a nutshell) is that you don't believe in evil
Sure he does...he just thinks western civilization and Republicans are evil.
It's real easy to understand Bolshie Bob when you realize he's playing on the other team.
This statement shows you haven't the slightest understanding of our Constitution.
Then please elucidate....where does the Constitution say we have to give Constitutional protections to foreign terrorists?
Hell most of what we did to the terrorists wouldn't even fall under the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause if we did it to American prisoners according to the Founder's ideas of what was cruel and unusual.
"Then please elucidate....where does the Constitution say we have to give Constitutional protections to foreign terrorists?"
Well, first of all, the constitution does not "give" us civil liberties. The constitution defines the limits of government power; its protections apply to any persons under US power or jurisdiction. The US may not subject any persons to cruel and unusual punishment. Americans are not "granted" special rights that are denied to non-Americans; the American government is limited by the Constitution in how it may treat any persons.
This is the sole reason the Bush administration set up a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay to house the prisoners collected in the wake of 9/11...in order to get around the Constitutional obligations that they believed would have pertained only if the prisoners were housed on the mainland.
They were disabused of this notion by the Supreme Court in Boumediene v. Bush.
That aside, the Taliban who killed the children are not in the United States. If our forces encounter them in Pakistan and engage them in battle, they may kill them. If, however, the Taliban were captured, they would be protected by the Geneva Conventions restrictions on treatment of prisoners, and, if brought to a place under US jurisdiction, they presumably would be subject to at least some constitutional protections.
"Hell most of what we did to the terrorists wouldn't even fall under the 'cruel and unusual punishment' clause if we did it to American prisoners according to the Founder's ideas of what was cruel and unusual."
One wonders how you have divine knowledge of what the founders considered "cruel and unusual" and what not. One also must assume you haven't paid much attention to what we did in our torture program, if you can so blithely dismiss it as not "cruel or unusual."
"Your problem Cook (in a nutshell) is that you don't believe in evil. It's always some oppressed tribesman, some طالبان, or some irate Austrian pushing back at 'The Man.'"
I'm not sure how you mean your first assertion. Do you mean "evil" as in a force that exists independently of any other human characteristic or aspect or concern? As in, someone "possessed by evil?"
No. Evil is an aspect of humanity's animalistic propensity for violence and greed, as well as our capacity for abstract thought. Most violence comes down to someone wanting to take something from someone else. However, because we can think abstractly, we conceive of ideas that have no materiality yet that we concretize in our minds into inviolable ideologies; we also kill for these ideologies, to enforce on others what we believe is an external truth.
(And then there are those who kill because they are, to use a term loosely, "crazy.")
As for the rest of your statement, I believe that anyone who kills others not in self-defense has done evil. This applies to us as well as anyone else, and to anyone else as much as to us. However, we--as all humans do--define anyone we're killing as, by definition and nature, "evil" and "bad," deserving of killing and the most awful of violence. We are killing countless people in the middle east, and we automatically think of them as "terrorists," (i.e., monsters who would eat our children), so our killing is justified and right. After all, we wouldn't be killing them if they weren't bad guys, would we?
However, not all we kill are not engaged in taking up arms against us at all, and not all who are engaged in taking up arms against us are bad guys but merely defending themselves from invaders of their lands. If a foreign force invaded our mainland, many Americans would take up arms against them, don't you think? Is that difficult to understand or imagine?
(You can be sure the British Empire saw the American colonists as terrorists and criminals, and not as heroes of liberty, as we view them.)
So, yes, I do believe in evil done by men, but I don't assume we are by definition always the good guys and those we kill by definition always bad guys.
(The Taliban who killed schoolchildren are certainly bad guys.)
Post a Comment