RE: Malala Yousafzai

RE: Malala Yousafzai (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

BamaD -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/10/2014 9:37:02 PM)
FR Before we get too far off track. This is not about any U S law. This is not about any UK law. This is about an atrocity committed in Afghanistan by Afghans

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 3:14:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Nope. Not talking about simple gun control a-la-US style. Ban public carrying of guns and she wouldn't have gotten shot. Not exactly backwards. Your current laws would allow anyone to make an identical attack in the US - almost anywhere. But.... our laws would almost certainly have prevented it. Again, it was essentially the government that attacked her Still, assuming your point about guns has any merit (which it doesnt) How would it have been better if the Islamists had knifed her, or stoned her, or attacked her with acid etc The problem isnt that people have access to tools and things, the problem is the Islamic ideology that teaches its adherents that females who dare to seek an education must be destroyed No, not a government at all. Nothing like one. A terrorist group known as the Taliban who briefly controlled Afghanistan and who hide out in northwest Pakistan and Iran. My point has merit even if you can't see it. Point being, like all the other idiotic gun debates on here, a gun is very likely (and often does) kill people whereas most other weapons (by comparison) generally don't. The fact that Malala got real lucky and managed to live after the attack was nothing short of miraculous. Interestingly, where was she taken for that delicate medical treatment? The UK; because it was considered her best chances of survival and recovery. And where does she choose to live these days? The UK; where guns are not prolific. Not the almighty US of A, anywhere else in Europe, her own country, or anywhere else in the middle east... the UK. Yanno, that funny little island full of insignificant gunphobics who live in a nanny state that has social healthcare and no gun rights. Strange that, isn't it. [:D] I do agree with your last bit although it only applies to those Islamics that take one of the many extreme views of Islam rather than Islam itself in general.

Sanity -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 5:35:07 AM)
No, Islamists are the government in Islamic countries as a rule, and their influence varies by country and in different parts of certain countries Those who you are calling terrorists, people in Pakistan in this case call religious leaders. They interpret Islamic law, and enforce it, which that is the force behind how Malala got shot

thishereboi -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 6:15:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MariaB What on earth is a 'nutsacker'? If I recall correctly it started as nutsucker but the mods nixed that and he changed the u to an a. I asked him to define it at one point but he just danced around and claimed everyone should already know who they are. So far it looks like it means anyone who doesn't agree with what ever bullshit he is spewing at the time.

thishereboi -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 6:31:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Nope. Not talking about simple gun control a-la-US style. Ban public carrying of guns and she wouldn't have gotten shot. Not exactly backwards. Your current laws would allow anyone to make an identical attack in the US - almost anywhere. But.... our laws would almost certainly have prevented it. Again, it was essentially the government that attacked her Still, assuming your point about guns has any merit (which it doesnt) How would it have been better if the Islamists had knifed her, or stoned her, or attacked her with acid etc The problem isnt that people have access to tools and things, the problem is the Islamic ideology that teaches its adherents that females who dare to seek an education must be destroyed No, not a government at all. Nothing like one. A terrorist group known as the Taliban who briefly controlled Afghanistan and who hide out in northwest Pakistan and Iran. My point has merit even if you can't see it. Point being, like all the other idiotic gun debates on here, a gun is very likely (and often does) kill people whereas most other weapons (by comparison) generally don't. The fact that Malala got real lucky and managed to live after the attack was nothing short of miraculous. Interestingly, where was she taken for that delicate medical treatment? The UK; because it was considered her best chances of survival and recovery. And where does she choose to live these days? The UK; where guns are not prolific. Not the almighty US of A, anywhere else in Europe, her own country, or anywhere else in the middle east... the UK. Yanno, that funny little island full of insignificant gunphobics who live in a nanny state that has social healthcare and no gun rights. Strange that, isn't it. [:D] I do agree with your last bit although it only applies to those Islamics that take one of the many extreme views of Islam rather than Islam itself in general. You admit it was the taliban, yet in the above post claim that banning public carry of guns would have stopped it. If the taliban is that good about obeying laws why not simply ban them from killing people. Using your logic that would solve everything. I also think it's cute as hell that you think they took her to England because she couldn't have gotten as good care if she had been brought here. Couldn't have anything to do with it being closer now could it. Of course if I am not mistaken you are the same poster who claimed no one could drive over 40mph here so maybe they took her there so they could drive her to the hospital faster.

cloudboy -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 6:40:56 AM)
The Taliban are pretty much a straight terrorist organization -- and a well organized dangerous one at that. Curious if we'd be having these problems if we didn't arm / train them to oust what was then the Northern Alliance -- backed by the USSR. In those days the Taliban were "freedom fighters." Osama Bin Laden, a hero "standing up for his people."

DomKen -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 6:50:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Again, it was essentially the government that attacked her Pull your head out of your ass. The Taliban is not the government of Afghanistan. Maybe you missed that long war we've been fighting about that? It's the other one your hero W bungled.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 6:53:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi You admit it was the taliban, yet in the above post claim that banning public carry of guns would have stopped it. I made no such claim... not in those definitive words. I said: "our laws would almost certainly have prevented it" because the guns wouldn't have been readily available. Nice twisty spin on words... but not my words. quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi If the taliban is that good about obeying laws why not simply ban them from killing people. Using your logic that would solve everything. Removing a deadly weapon from public places and the general populace is a completely different thing to telling a group of terrorists that they must not shoot or behead people. quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi I also think it's cute as hell that you think they took her to England because she couldn't have gotten as good care if she had been brought here. Couldn't have anything to do with it being closer now could it. Nope. it was stated by the media and government officials as well as the immediate medical crew that attended her at the time. Sorry to burst your bubble. quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Of course if I am not mistaken you are the same poster who claimed no one could drive over 40mph here so maybe they took her there so they could drive her to the hospital faster. Nothing of the sort. Again, I made no such claim. Another idiot who can't read. Quote where I said that. I said that the people I was living with just happen not to drive over 30mph no matter where they go.

Sanity -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 7:26:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Again, it was essentially the government that attacked her Pull your head out of your ass. The Taliban is not the government of Afghanistan. Maybe you missed that long war we've been fighting about that? It's the other one your hero W bungled. Pull your head out of your ass. I didn't post that the Taliban is the government of Afghanistan, and we are discussing Pakistan anyway In a way they are the government of areas of Pakistan (and Afghanistan) though, especially in certain parts. Its a bit nuanced, nothing someone like you could ever possibly understand Or be honest about

BamaD -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 7:45:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 Nope. Not talking about simple gun control a-la-US style. Ban public carrying of guns and she wouldn't have gotten shot. Not exactly backwards. Your current laws would allow anyone to make an identical attack in the US - almost anywhere. But.... our laws would almost certainly have prevented it. Again, it was essentially the government that attacked her Still, assuming your point about guns has any merit (which it doesnt) How would it have been better if the Islamists had knifed her, or stoned her, or attacked her with acid etc The problem isnt that people have access to tools and things, the problem is the Islamic ideology that teaches its adherents that females who dare to seek an education must be destroyed No, not a government at all. Nothing like one. A terrorist group known as the Taliban who briefly controlled Afghanistan and who hide out in northwest Pakistan and Iran. My point has merit even if you can't see it. Point being, like all the other idiotic gun debates on here, a gun is very likely (and often does) kill people whereas most other weapons (by comparison) generally don't. The fact that Malala got real lucky and managed to live after the attack was nothing short of miraculous. Interestingly, where was she taken for that delicate medical treatment? The UK; because it was considered her best chances of survival and recovery. And where does she choose to live these days? The UK; where guns are not prolific. Not the almighty US of A, anywhere else in Europe, her own country, or anywhere else in the middle east... the UK. Yanno, that funny little island full of insignificant gunphobics who live in a nanny state that has social healthcare and no gun rights. Strange that, isn't it. [:D] I do agree with your last bit although it only applies to those Islamics that take one of the many extreme views of Islam rather than Islam itself in general. Yes most people survive Jihadist attempts to behead them don't they. The doctors on the scene when she was shot were British, they were the ones who took her to get first world medical care. Maybe that had something to do with why she was taken to the UK. But then why pass up a chance to attack the U S, we are obviously the villain in any situation.

BamaD -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 7:53:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi Of course if I am not mistaken you are the same poster who claimed no one could drive over 40mph here so maybe they took her there so they could drive her to the hospital faster. Nothing of the sort. Again, I made no such claim. Another idiot who can't read. Quote where I said that. I said that the people I was living with just happen not to drive over 30mph no matter where they go. What thread was that in so I can go back and prove your right?

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 7:58:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Again, it was essentially the government that attacked her Pull your head out of your ass. The Taliban is not the government of Afghanistan. Maybe you missed that long war we've been fighting about that? It's the other one your hero W bungled. Pull your head out of your ass. I didn't post that the Taliban is the government of Afghanistan, and we are discussing Pakistan anyway In a way they are the government of areas of Pakistan (and Afghanistan) though, especially in certain parts. Its a bit nuanced, nothing someone like you could ever possibly understand Or be honest about No, but you posted that it was the government that attacked her and that the governing body was the Taliban. Here - quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It was a form of government that carried out the attack on Malala Yousafzai, the religious governing body known as the Taliban And again here - quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Again, it was essentially the government that attacked her And as far as I'm aware, the Taliban have never ruled Pakistan.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 8:26:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD The doctors on the scene when she was shot were British, they were the ones who took her to get first world medical care. Maybe that had something to do with why she was taken to the UK. Nope. Not British doctors. Medical treatment: After the shooting, Yousafzai was airlifted to a military hospital in Peshawar, where doctors were forced to begin operating after swelling developed in the left portion of her brain, which had been damaged by the bullet when it passed through her head. After a three-hour operation, doctors successfully removed the bullet, which had lodged in her shoulder near her spinal cord. The day following the attack, doctors performed a decompressive craniectomy, in which part of the skull is removed to allow room for the brain to swell. On 11 October 2012, a panel of Pakistani and British doctors decided to move Yousafzai to the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology in Rawalpindi. Mumtaz Khan, a doctor, said that she had a 70% chance of survival. Interior Minister Rehman Malik said that Yousafzai would be shifted to Germany, where she could receive the best medical treatment, as soon as she was stable enough to travel. A team of doctors would travel with her, and the government would bear the expenditures of her treatment. Doctors reduced Yousafzai's sedation on 13 October, and she moved all four limbs. Offers to treat Yousafzai came from around the world. On 15 October, Yousafzai traveled to the United Kingdom for further treatment, approved by both her doctors and family. Her plane landed in Dubai to refuel and then continued to Birmingham, where she was treated at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, one of the specialties of this hospital being the treatment of military personnel injured in conflict. Peshawar military hospital: Combined Military Hospitals (CMHs) are base hospitals of Pakistan Armed Forces situated in various cantonments. These hospitals are run by the doctors of Pakistan's Army Medical Corps. So no, they were not British doctors that were overseeing her initial care. It wasn't until after she had been in Germany for 2 days that her doctors and her family decided to move her to the UK. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD But then why pass up a chance to attack the U S, we are obviously the villain in any situation. I'm not attacking the US at all. Just making an observation.

Sanity -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 8:41:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Again, it was essentially the government that attacked her Pull your head out of your ass. The Taliban is not the government of Afghanistan. Maybe you missed that long war we've been fighting about that? It's the other one your hero W bungled. Pull your head out of your ass. I didn't post that the Taliban is the government of Afghanistan, and we are discussing Pakistan anyway In a way they are the government of areas of Pakistan (and Afghanistan) though, especially in certain parts. Its a bit nuanced, nothing someone like you could ever possibly understand Or be honest about No, but you posted that it was the government that attacked her and that the governing body was the Taliban. Here - quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity It was a form of government that carried out the attack on Malala Yousafzai, the religious governing body known as the Taliban And again here - quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Again, it was essentially the government that attacked her And as far as I'm aware, the Taliban have never ruled Pakistan. Did I write that they rule Pakistan? No, you are making things up because you have no real argument. Islamists do rule certain parts of Pakistan, as well as England and France, holding court etc There are areas in Pakistan where Islamists / the Taliban are the defacto governing body, despite your ignorance

BamaD -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 8:42:01 AM)
On 11 October 2012, a panel of Pakistani and British doctors decided to move Yousafzai to the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology in Rawalpindi. Mumtaz Khan, a doctor, said that she had a 70% chance of survival. Interior Minister Rehman Malik said that Yousafzai would be shifted to Germany, where she could receive the best medical treatment, as soon as she was stable enough to travel. A team of doctors would travel with her, and the government would bear the expenditures of her treatment. Doctors reduced Yousafzai's sedation on 13 October, and she moved all four limbs. By your own words the foreign doctors were British.

Sanity -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 9:16:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy The Taliban are pretty much a straight terrorist organization -- and a well organized dangerous one at that. Curious if we'd be having these problems if we didn't arm / train them to oust what was then the Northern Alliance -- backed by the USSR. In those days the Taliban were "freedom fighters." Osama Bin Laden, a hero "standing up for his people." Islam isn't just a religion, boy. It is very much a political ideology, and a form of government. And despite what your professors may have taught you the United States did not create Islam. Islamists (those who you refer to as "terrorists) have been around much longer than we have. You really should read some books. Get a passport, perhaps, and travel. Get out more and learn about the real world.

Edwynn -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 10:05:36 AM)
If you'd ever read anything beyond comic books and fifth grade biographies, then the real history is that the Western powers have rattled cages around the world for centuries, which definitely includes funding and material and logistical support for a plethora of dictatorships and wacko terrorists or proto-terrorists in all corners of the world. So one or a few of them actually bite back on occasion. Of course some of them are out of control nutjobs, but that's who we hired to begin with. The Wahabi in Saudi Arabia (the fount of AQ), Pinochet in Chile, killing Allende, overthrowing Arbenz in Guatemala, Mossaddeggh in Iraq, selling WMD to both Iraq and Iran in the '80s, oil companies slaughtering entire villages in Africa and in S America ... And now you want a hankie, "cuz he bit me!" ... Good luck with that one, champ. Or are you saying that you deserve a hankie because our way of mass slaughter is morally superior to their way of somewhat-less-massive-slaughter? Which in every case is only possible because of Western (UK, US, France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, etc.) and Russian and Chinese arms sales to every 'hot spot' in the world and selective ,when politically convenient, small WMD. You might also discover, if you ever get beyond the comic books and the wacko web sites, that it was the Western governments and their oil companies that literally drew the modern day ME map after WWI, sloshing completely disparate tribes around as if in a punch bowl-sized petri dish. And then wondering what all the fuss was about. So then, you've at least got your mind to wrap around where the mindset was 100 years ago, and are full on with that. Keep on truckin'. The white man's burden is never easy.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 10:07:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Did I write that they rule Pakistan? No, you are making things up because you have no real argument. Nobody claimed you said that at all and I certainly didn't say it. So no, I'm not making things up.. it was your assertion that someone made that claim, nobody else. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Islamists do rule certain parts of Pakistan, as well as England and France, holding court etc You asserted that the governing body was the Taliban. Again, your words, not mine or anyone else's. Also, Islamists have never ruled England or France and Islamic courts are not recognised in either country. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity There are areas in Pakistan where Islamists / the Taliban are the defacto governing body, Lots of Islamists.... but NOT the Taliban. Try reading some history here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pakistan quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity despite your ignorance It would seem the ignorance is yours.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 10:13:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD On 11 October 2012, a panel of Pakistani and British doctors decided to move Yousafzai to the Armed Forces Institute of Cardiology in Rawalpindi. Mumtaz Khan, a doctor, said that she had a 70% chance of survival. Interior Minister Rehman Malik said that Yousafzai would be shifted to Germany, where she could receive the best medical treatment, as soon as she was stable enough to travel. A team of doctors would travel with her, and the government would bear the expenditures of her treatment. Doctors reduced Yousafzai's sedation on 13 October, and she moved all four limbs. By your own words the foreign doctors were British. Really?? Where did I say that?? Nice spin!! [:D] The doctors were from a Pakistani military hospital run by the Pakistani medical corps - not British. And it was a panel of those as well as British doctors that decided to move her - not just British ones. British doctors were not involved in any treatment until she arrived in the UK. You really are bad at reading comprehension.

Sanity -> RE: Malala Yousafzai (10/11/2014 10:17:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Did I write that they rule Pakistan? No, you are making things up because you have no real argument. Nobody claimed you said that at all and I certainly didn't say it. So no, I'm not making things up.. it was your assertion that someone made that claim, nobody else. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Islamists do rule certain parts of Pakistan, as well as England and France, holding court etc You asserted that the governing body was the Taliban. Again, your words, not mine or anyone else's. Also, Islamists have never ruled England or France and Islamic courts are not recognised in either country. quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity There are areas in Pakistan where Islamists / the Taliban are the defacto governing body, Lots of Islamists.... but NOT the Taliban. Try reading some history here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Pakistan quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity despite your ignorance It would seem the ignorance is yours. So sorry, but yes - the Taliban (who shot her as means of carrying out their judgement against her, in Pakistan).

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.201172E-02