How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby Nordic » Sun Oct 21, 2012 4:26 am

It's gotten so bad that I am currently wondering if this Malala Yousufzai story is real, or manufactured.

How do we know?

It sure is convenient. And sickeningly hypocritical, how she just as likely could have been literally blown to pieces by an American drone strike, and nobody would have given a SHIT.

There sure seem to be plenty of nicely shot photos of her, back before she allegedly got shot, taken by big mainstream media companies. Like this one:

Image

Why is that?

She was writing her blog for the BBC. Why was that? Whose idea was that? Who approached her to do that?

Why, when she was supposed to be cloaked in anonomity for her own protection, were photos like this taken as well?

Image

Why are the words in that plaque written in English?

The timing is rather suspicious, during an election year, when there is a fairly high amount of alternative press devoted to the CIA's drone strikes, which often slaughter girls just like her.

But no, we're saving these wonderful people from the evil Taliban, right?

Right. A month before the election.

Okay.

How do we know this whole thing isn't fake? I mean, she might be real, and even her injuries might be real (and then again maybe not for all we know!) but the whole thing reeks of being staged.

Anybody else felt this way?

It just reminds me a HELL OF A LOT of those documentaries that were coming out of Afghanistan right before we invaded, showing women being executed in the soccer stadium. Remember that? Sorta came and went, didn't it? Came out when it was convenient to come out, then vanished. And whatever happened to that attractive woman who was making that doc? She got a lot of press time then, haven't heard from her since.

Reminds me so much of that.

Anybody remember the name of that doc? "Behind the veil" or something, right?

Whoa! Looking that up, it was also the BBC. And the woman I'm remembering is named Saira Shah. And it was in the summer of 2001 that it came out! Before 9/11! How .... convenient again!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1410061.stm

Image
This girl saw her mother shot by Taleban soldiers


Executions

The crew also acquired secretly-filmed footage of a public execution in a football stadium financed by the West.

The footage shows a veiled woman dragged to the centre of the pitch, and forced to kneel facing the goal posts.

She is shot dead to the cheers of the watching crowds.

The team then ventured to the north-west corner of the country, which is still in the hands of the opposition.

Earlier in the year, the Taleban briefly took control of four villages.

The survivors told stories of how dozens of civilians were rounded up and executed.

Footage obtained from a local wedding photographer showed the villagers burying their dead.

Three girls sitting huddled in brightly coloured veils outside one house described how they saw their mother being shot dead.

Their father said they have not stopped crying for weeks.


Then came the nailing of kittens to the mosque doors .....

Saira Shah also made another film for the BBC, which seems to be an anti-Palestinian bit of propaganda (although I haven't seen it, so I can't say for sure, but I'm going from this description below, from wikipedia), called "Death in Gaza":

Children

The film follows the children in different aspects of their lives including life in the vicinity of military forces and games born out of the conflict – such as running towards, throwing rocks and homemade explosives, quwas, at armored vehicles; Study materials in schools which focus on Palestinian perceptions of the conflict, as well as time spent with family and friends, including following one of the children as he plays with and helps militant fighters. The film also makes note of the political use of public mourning for conflict enhancement.

[edit]Martyrdom
For a short while the film concentrates on martyrdom and the opinions of the people there about dying for Palestine and Islam. It briefly tells the story of a young boy who was shot while attacking Israeli forces much like the main boys Ahmed and Mohammed, as well as numerous other unnamed boys. The film follows the boy from being brought into the medical center and the initial treatment, to his death and public reaction, to the parade and his burial, and celebration at his success in becoming a martyr.
[edit]
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
Nordic
 
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA
Blog: View Blog (6)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:23 am

The Taliban actually are horror movie nightmares, though. I would volunteer for a unit to actually exterminate them -- COIN is the opposite of that, though: they just enable them.

And this girl was getting media attention long before she got shot -- that is, you may recall, why she got shot.

Edit -- also, wasn't obvious CIA NWO shill James Miller the man behind Behind the Veil? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Mill ... lmmaker%29
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10313
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:22 am

Strange how we all just got used to the blood.......

I dream in my sleep, I dream in my days
Image


Image
National Center for Health Statistics


October 18, 2012
Infanticide as Policy?
Children Under Attack in Pakistan and Afghanistan
by DAVE LINDORFF

Six children were attacked in Afghanistan and Pakistan this past week. Three of them, teenaged girls on a school bus in Peshawar, in the tribal region of western Pakistan, were shot and gravely wounded by two Taliban gunmen who were after Malala Yousufzai, a 14-year-old girl who has been bravely demanding the right of girls to an education. After taking a bullet to the head, and facing further death threats, she has been moved to a specialty hospital in Britain. Her two wounded classmates are being treated in Pakistan.

The other three children were not so lucky. They were killed Sunday in an aerial attack by a US aircraft in the the Nawa district of Helmand Province in Afghanistan, not so far from Pakistan. The attack, described by the military as a “precision strike,” was reportedly aimed at several Taliban fighters who were allegedly planting an IED in the road, but the strike also killed three children, Borjan, 12; Sardar Wali, 10; and Khan Bibi, 8, all from one family, who were right nearby collecting dung for fuel.

Initially, as is its standard MO, the US denied that any children had been killed and insisted that the aircraft had targeted three “Taliban” fighters, and had successfully killed them. Only later, as evidence grew indesputable that the three children had also been killed, the US switched to its standard fallback position for atrocities in the Afghanistan War and its other wars: it announced that it was “investigating” the incident and said that it “regretted” any civilian deaths.

There are several questions that arise immediately from this second story. First of all, if the three kids were close enough to be killed by this “precision” attack, they were surely also close enough to have been visible to whatever surveillance craft was monitoring the activities of the Taliban fighters, and if they were seen, there should have been no air strike called in. Second, the US, allegedly trying to reduce civilian casualties, is supposedly now operating its air attacks under rules of engagement that only allow strikes where there is “imminent danger” to US or allied forces. How is planting an IED an “imminent” danger? If the location is known, troops in the area can be alerted, and the IED removed or detonated. An identified IED is not an imminent threat.

The American media have been awash in coverage of the attack on the three Pakistani girls, and on the fate of the courageous girl’s education advocate, young Malala.

Not so the deaths of the three Afghan kids. They didn’t even merit their own article in the nation’s leading newspaper, The New York Times, which simply inserted a couple of paragraphs concerning their deaths near the end of an article about so-called “green-on-blue killings” of US troops by their supposed Afghan Army allies (two Americans were killed in one such attack on Saturday).

The contrast between the two attacks on children is even greater when it comes to the response in the two countries, Pakistan and the US. In Pakistan, after the attack on Malala and her two classmates, tens of thousands of Pakistanis turned out in demonstrations to protest the actions of the Taliban fanatics and to demand that they be caught and punished (there have been arrests of two alleged perpetrators). The Pakistani government vowed to prosecute the would-be killers, and has paid to have Malala transferred to a safer and better hospital in the UK. It is also providing armed guards to protect the other two girls.

Meanwhile, in the US, most people don’t even know that their own military just blew away three young Afghan children. The sad truth is, even if they did know, they wouldn’t really care. There’d be no outpouring onto the streets of people demanding a halt to the air attacks and the drone killings. Only 28% of Americans say they object to America’s drone warfare, though it is clear that drone attacks are leading to the deaths of hundreds — perhaps thousands — of innocent civilians. According to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center, a survey of 20 countries about reactions to drone warfare found that in the US only 28 % of Americans said they disapproved of America’s drone warfare campaign. In countries that are normally America’s allies, like Britain, Germany and Japan, disapproval rates were 47%, 59% and 75% respectively. In the US, the survey found 62 % of Americans actively support drone warfare, giving America the distinction of being the only country surveyed in which a majority of the public supports killing by drone.

The attackers of the three schoolgirls in Pakistan, who have been arrested already, will almost certainly be imprisoned for their heinous crimes. Not so the pilot and the targeting personnel who called in his deadly strike that led to the deaths of three Afghan children. They will come home from the war hailed as “heroes” by any Americans they meet. People will pass them and say, “Thank you for your service” — even though that “service” includes killing little children.

UPDATE: The US is going to extraordinary lengths to pretend it did not target innocent children in this strike, which it now says was done not by a plane dropping a bomb, but by a guided missile (presumably fired by a plane or a drone, since it had to be steered real time to its dimunitive targets). In a report in the New York Times, which publication itself went to great lengths to offer its own imagined ideas as to why the military could not be blamed for targeting these children, the Pentagon offered up that the children “appeared” to have been “used” by the Taliban to “emplace” the IED. There is no proof offered for this conjecture.

In any event, the point remains that the children should have been readily identifiable in any surveillance video, given the shorter length of their shadows in an October sun. And more importantly, the US is not supposed to do air strikes unless there is an “imminent danger” to allied or Afghan troops, and the placing of an IED, witnessed and filmed so its location would be known, cannot be considered an imminent threat.

The US and the Times cannot seem to get their story straight either. In the lead to the article, NATO command is said to have reported that the children were killed by an “artillery strike” that was called in. Later, a NATO official is quoted as saying a guided missile was used.

So much lying inevitably leads to confusion and contradiction.

The truth: three little kids were killed by US forces who target them in violation of their own operating rules on use of force as agreed to with the Afghan government. Although the Times headline reads “Questions Raised in Deaths of Afghan Children in Coalition (sic) Strike,” that question is not mentioned. Nor does the Times honestly report that it was a US strike, not a euphemistic “Coalition” strike.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 31168
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby JackRiddler » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:45 am

How do we know you, the Nordic persona on RI, are the voice of a real person representing his own actual views, and not the product of a military persona management unit assigned to visit and influence this board?

At least there are no pictures of you available here. That's pretty strong evidence for your existence. If there were any pictures of you, it would be evidence that the BBC had constructed your story.

How do we know the Taliban are largely religious fanatics who oppress and massacre people for perceived infractions of their strict behavioral code? I mean, come on. The beards. The yelling. Shooting women. Blowing up Buddhas. If Hollywood wrote villains like this, who would have believed it?

The producer of "Behind the Veil" was shot and killed by the Israeli Defense Forces. How do we know they didn't do it because he was about to reveal that the soccer field execution of a woman by the Taliban was, in fact, shot in a Tel Aviv studio?

And those Pakistanis! Speaking and writing in English? Really? Why? For whom? They say English is one of two official languages of that country? But anyone can just put that in Wikipedia, right? Other sources on this might be CIA. Are we supposed to believe that Pakistan was colonized by the English for almost 400 years? Four. Hundred. Years?! Really? How convenient that English is also the language of American TV, the one that the stupid sheeple Americans watch. Those Pakistani people speaking English? That's just too good to be true.

How come this Nordic guy writes in English? Do they speak that in this place he says he comes from? It's kind of convenient that he can just come here and write things in English, so that we can read it, don't you think? Who is it that wants you to understand what Nordic is saying?

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 14348
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby barracuda » Sun Oct 21, 2012 12:04 pm

If she's a fake, someone has created a rather extensive and extraordinary backstory for her. She was amazingly precocious for her age, but I suppose those things happen.













User avatar
barracuda
 
Posts: 12887
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby Jeff » Sun Oct 21, 2012 2:20 pm

Wombaticus Rex wrote:The Taliban actually are horror movie nightmares, though.


Yes. It is possible and indeed morally necessary to oppose both imperialism and fundamentalism.

And here's where I heartily commend The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan, of which Malalai Joya is the best known representative in the West.

From ABC Online, Sep. 7, 2011:

I note that our political leaders often put forward as one of the many reasons for remaining in Afghanistan that the country may again become a "safe haven for terrorists" if our troops leave. She is familiar with that line, immediately responding that "Afghanistan is already a safe haven for terrorists" and commenting that our presence doubles the misery of her people. She knows it won't be heaven after the troops leave, but she says that "if you withdraw your support for warlords and drug lords, like Matiullah Khan in Uruzgan, then it will help to break their backbone. Redirect your support to democratic institutions, to women's organisations, to peace movements, to education, certain NGOs or the Solidarity Party of Afghanstan."


http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2011/09 ... truth.html
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11133
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby 12#4 » Sun Oct 21, 2012 5:14 pm

How to know? Likely at a future date, she will make a return to her homeland from Britain where I believe she is being treated currently.

She will make speeches, become active politically (perhaps run for office), become a very public figure (even moreso) and draw crowds.

She will stray from the script, criticize drone assassinations of children and secret domestic terror plots (as any truly loyal Pakistani might do). This will enrage someone, somewhere as a deal was made and expected to be honoured.

News at 11: Popular Pakistani political activist and assassination attempt survivor killed. M.Y. is the 21st-century Bhutto apparent, it's plain to see.

The above is speculative, tragic non-historical non-wishful fiction.
12#4
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2010 5:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby Ben D » Sun Oct 21, 2012 8:39 pm

Nordic wrote:It's gotten so bad that I am currently wondering if this Malala Yousufzai story is real, or manufactured.

How do we know?

Sure thing Nordic, it was obvious pretty soon after the media blitz on this case began, that this was mostly classic propaganda.

Good to see your intuition is rigorous!
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby DrVolin » Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:01 pm

That a story is used for propaganda doesn't make it imaginary. And that a story isn't used for propaganda doesn't make its details objectively true.
all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

--Guns and Roses
DrVolin
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby justdrew » Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:59 pm

what's propaganda about it?

the forces of fundamentalism in Pakistan and Afghanistan need to be wiped out. If they wont change their minds, then they need to lose their heads.

These forces have nearly destroyed Pakistan, which was a fairly decent country for a long time before they started their rise to power in the 90s. Now school girls have to worry about getting acid in the face or just shot. Fuck those people doing that shit. I hope they all die suffering.

What is MOST unfortunate, is the US quietly aided and abetted their rise to power, along with our buddies in Saudi Arabia. Which needs it's monarchy removed from power.

Now we see those very forces, FINALLY (since about 2009 (what a coincidence)) actually getting killed. Good.

Let's be clear, pure pacifism is for victims in waiting. Sometimes an enemy must be identified and dealt with via lethal force. The sad thing is we had to sit through 8 years of the bush gang aiding and abetting those very forces, dragging it's heals at every opportunity. Those fuckers wanted this to go on forever, Obama is ending it.

The bush gang was a different story, their aims and objectives are NOT the aims and objectives currently being pursued.

In fact, it's urgent that everyone on earth get the message that small armed bands aiming to get power by the use of violence are destroyed in detail. These small groups of... well, "terrorists" (including "gangs" in the US, Mexico, and everywhere else) are a very real threat. Not so much to domestic US population, but to everyone else, particularly those in their primary areas of operation.

Who are the people getting killed by these gangs (a far better word that terrorist, less bullshit baggage from bush)? They're people like "us" - and they deserve to be defended.

We really need to pivot a bit on this matter, gangs are a real problem.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby smiths » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:06 pm

wahey, did the green light for murderous diatribe just go on,

I would volunteer for a unit to actually exterminate them


If they wont change their minds, then they need to lose their heads


I hope they all die suffering.


Sometimes an enemy must be identified and dealt with via lethal force.

Obama is ending it.

(this comment is so absurd i dont know if its meant humorously, although i doubt it)

so we dont just want the end of inequality and fanaticism, we want 'these people' to be exterminated and to die suffering
thats called a spiral, and it doesnt spiral towards peace and democracy

in response to the OP, i think this story has without doubt been absorbed into the propaganda machine and is being used to very powerful effect,
but i think she is a real girl, doing real work for good

you know ... good, care, love, constructive peace
the question is why, who, why, what, why, when, why and why again?
User avatar
smiths
 
Posts: 2204
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 4:18 am
Location: perth, western australia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby DrVolin » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:12 pm

justdrew wrote:
Let's be clear, pure pacifism is for victims in waiting.


That's certainly what Paul had in mind.
all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars

--Guns and Roses
DrVolin
 
Posts: 1544
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 7:19 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby justdrew » Sun Oct 21, 2012 11:28 pm

DrVolin wrote:
justdrew wrote:
Let's be clear, pure pacifism is for victims in waiting.


That's certainly what Paul had in mind.



well, how do you expect to stop a bunch of armed thugs from running around killing and intimidating anyone they want?
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby Ben D » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:21 am

justdrew wrote:well, how do you expect to stop a bunch of armed thugs from running around killing and intimidating anyone they want?

Well it's a bit hard when the thugs have got space age weaponry, drones, etc., but my guess is that the Taliban are trying the way we read about it,..quite evil methods by our civilized standards.
There is That which was not born, nor created, nor evolved. If it were not so, there would never be any refuge from being born, or created, or evolving. That is the end of suffering. That is God**.

** or Nirvana, Allah, Brahman, Tao, etc...
User avatar
Ben D
 
Posts: 2005
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 8:10 pm
Location: Australia
Blog: View Blog (3)

Re: How do we know the Malala Yousufzai story is real?

Postby justdrew » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:33 am

Ben D wrote:
justdrew wrote:well, how do you expect to stop a bunch of armed thugs from running around killing and intimidating anyone they want?

Well it's a bit hard when the thugs have got space age weaponry, drones, etc., but my guess is that the Taliban are trying the way we read about it,..quite evil methods by our civilized standards.


right, of course it's not worth doing, just let Islamic fascists take over unopposed. We all of a sudden support theocratic butcher states. of course, they do all the shit "we" do, but for some reason you have no real problem with that. Apparently it would be ok for religious police to patrol the streets, murder writers, filmmakers, gays, women, homosexuals, intellectuals, really... anyone they feel like killing.

mustn't do anything to stop that. that would be nasty.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DrEvil and 10 guests