Taliban attack army school in Pakistan

[FNG]

Harrison Slade?

Spirit Of Slade
i'm very sorry, for some reason, most likely posting in between working, i confused you with another poster. i'll withdraw the 'will you fuck off now' bit

I must admit the "spirit of" bit did invoke memories of Harrison Slade,and did wonder if s/he was trying to ingratiate himself back into the community, totally unfounded speculation of course.

 

[Pickman's model]

Harrison Slade?


I must admit the "spirit of" bit did invoke memories of Harrison Slade,and did wonder if s/he was trying to ingratiate himself back into the community, totally unfounded speculation of course.

i was posting in the spirit of noddy holder out of slade

 

[FNG]

This guy?

 

[FNG]

believe we need to take into account that to many of the ethnic groups in the northwest of Pakistan and the east of Afghanistan "Afghani" and "Pakistani" are meaningless - they're Pashtun or Hazara or some other ethno-tribal grouping, first and foremost. Most of them are not Taliban, but they aresensitive to the Afghan and Pakistan armies invading what they see as their territory, and killing their friends and relatives, and to the US bombing them from the air on the off-chance of killing a Taliban staffer. This means antipathy and a willingness to throw a spanner in the works of the regional powers that the regional powers resent (regional powers who do, after all, understand the "values and mindset" of the tribal peoples), and in turn generates new problems besides the Taliban.

Excellent analysis, also worth noting that the military have hived off resources from their "war on terror" to persecute Pashtun and Bolochi leftists and nationalists/independence sepratists.

 

[Grandma Death]

Not really. But my knee has stopped jerking. I'm not happy that kids have been butchered by these dogs and people who voice their (admittedly impotent) rage are being taken to task over mere semantics.

At the end of the day it's about context. I hear the argument 'savages' can be viewed as racist. Myself personally... I felt the exact same way about the US soldiers pissing on dead Iraqi soldiers or the perpetrators of torture and rape in guantanomo Bay. However. Objectively looking at it. What type of person preplans an attack on school kids? Either they have mental health problems or they believe kids are justifiable targets... And to plan that then carry it out.. Takes a very special cold blooded person. If I choose to describe them as savage it's only because I can't describe them in any other way. The taliban aren't synonymous with savagery. But make no mistake.. They are barbaric savages for what they have done. I won't apologise for my use of the word either.

 

[Grandma Death]

I'd also like to ask... If planning an attack on a school... Then carrying out the attack... Murdering innocent children.... If that's not savagery... Then what is?

 

[Pickman's model]

This guy?

 

[Pickman's model]

I'd also like to ask... If planning an attack on a school... Then carrying out the attack... Murdering innocent children.... If that's not savagery... Then what is?

from page 1:

tbh calling them savages is lazy and says more about your own attitudes than it does about them. what they did is vile and horrific: and indeed savage - but calling them savages plays on a load of auld imperial themes which places you quite happily further up the ladder of civilization than they. as ought to have become apparent from the events of the middle of the last century, europe cannot claim any superiority on this front than any other part of the world.

there is a considerable difference between calling someone A SAVAGE and saying that what they did IS SAVAGE.

 

[Citizen66]

At the end of the day it's about context. I hear the argument 'savages' can be viewed as racist. Myself personally... I felt the exact same way about the US soldiers pissing on dead Iraqi soldiers or the perpetrators of torture and rape in guantanomo Bay. However. Objectively looking at it. What type of person preplans an attack on school kids? Either they have mental health problems or they believe kids are justifiable targets... And to plan that then carry it out.. Takes a very special cold blooded person. If I choose to describe them as savage it's only because I can't describe them in any other way. The taliban aren't synonymous with savagery. But make no mistake.. They are barbaric savages for what they have done. I won't apologise for my use of the word either.

How very big of you.

 

[Pickman's model]

How very big of you.

i was thinking that he's probably got other things to apologise for.

 

[coley]

Sadism presupposes that the perpetrators derived pleasure from their actions. They may have done, but I'm not going to assume that it's a given.
We should also both understand that in incidences like these (remember the Shankhill Butchers, and what they did to their victims?) the idea is to shock and horrify to the maximum degree possible. To disgust outsiders and to generate fear. To send a political message that says "fucking with us or annoying us will get this visited on you".



Thing is, the negotiations aren't with them, they're with the men who direct them.

But is negotiation possible? To be quite frank, if giving the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and Uncle Tom Cobbleys marching band their own homelands would settle things down,I think the US, UN, EU etc would be seriously looking into it but it seems to be more about territorial gain and imposing the different factions individual belief system on said 'gained territories'
So you would no sooner have drawn up a new set of borders than the different factions would resume hostilities?
The words 'concession, reason and reconciliation' even 'real polotik' don't seem to exist in the world of Islamic extremism.

 

[coley]

I'd also like to ask... If planning an attack on a school... Then carrying out the attack... Murdering innocent children.... If that's not savagery... Then what is?

It's savage, barbaric,behaviour, but the people who planned it and executed it are not "savages" in the accepted sense.
Various dictionaries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, brutal psychopathic zealots they certainly are, the murders achieved little more than a 24 hour media/public storm of indignation.
Given that,what will their next trick be? It seems they can kill, abduct and murder, sell into slavery, do what they like really and and as long as they are doing it to each other, we in the west, can go through the motions of shocked horror and indignation and then forget about it.
The IRA, IIRC, invented the 'spectacular' today's terrorist have the means, technology and funds the IRA couldn't have even dreamed about.

 

[Grandma Death]

I'd agree with pickmans and VP that using the word 'savages' is unhelpful, and that's nothing to do with an iota of sympathy for the Taliban or their cause. There are plenty of white guys that commit horrific acts - pedophiles, gang rapists, mass murders, torturers, war criminals and so on but they are rarely referred to as 'savages' (though they may be called 'monsters' or some such thing). It is clear that 'savage' is a racist and colonialist term and should be jettisoned for that reason alone. Just because people are rightfully outraged by these acts they should still think about the language that they use. It would be wrong to call the Taliban 'fucking ragheads' or 'sand niggers' or something like that out of outrage, though obviously those terms are more explicitly racist in comparison to 'savages' which is a subtler, and probably a subconscious, communication of similar ideas.

That said, you've got to cut people some slack when they're reacting in anger to such an unspeakable atrocity as this slaughter of innocents. Sometimes they might not use the most PC language when under heightened emotions, but no one's perfect. I'm only able to write this fairly coolly because enough time has passed after the massacre to be able to deliberate about how to react a bit more calmly.

Like all language its about context.

How very big of you.

Why thank you cunty

 

[Grandma Death]

It's savage, barbaric,behaviour, but the people who planned it and executed it are not "savages" in the accepted sense.
Various dictionaries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, brutal psychopathic zealots they certainly are, the murders achieved little more than a 24 hour media/public storm of indignation.
Given that,what will their next trick be? It seems they can kill, abduct and murder, sell into slavery, do what they like really and and as long as they are doing it to each other, we in the west, can go through the motions of shocked horror and indignation and then forget about it.
The IRA, IIRC, invented the 'spectacular' today's terrorist have the means, technology and funds the IRA couldn't have even dreamed about.

I think the nazis were savages. I also think the perpetrators in the Rwanda massacre were savages. I also think Anders Brevik was a savage. Where does that leave me...occupying some sort of moral high ground with tinges of racism?

 

[coley]

I think the nazis were savages. I also think the perpetrators in the Rwanda massacre were savages. I also think Anders Brevik was a savage. Where does that leave me...occupying some sort of moral high ground with tinges of racism?

Not saying how you feel is wrong, but the notion of the 'savage' is a colonisation construct, the 'noble savage' etc'
These people are not savages as the people of the 1850s saw the the Zulu, the Maori etc. the people who planned and perpetrated this atrocity are as educated and intelligent as most on here, the difference being they have no empathy regarding their fellow human beings, humanity is of no interest to them, only their ideology, and that is what makes it so difficult to comprehend their next move, in short they don't care who lives or dies, as long as their beliefs triumphs.

 

[Grandma Death]

Not saying how you feel is wrong, but the notion of the 'savage' is a colonisation construct, the 'noble savage' etc'
These people are not savages as the people of the 1850s saw the the Zulu, the Maori etc. the people who planned and perpetrated this atrocity are as educated and intelligent as most on here, the difference being they have no empathy regarding their fellow human beings, humanity is of no interest to them, only their ideology, and that is what makes it so difficult to comprehend their next move, in short they don't care who lives or dies, as long as their beliefs triumphs.

I totally agree that savages in a certain context is viewed as racist. Look at the final solution. Not many would describe the nazis as savages. For me though-its anyone that alllows indiscriminate and deliberate targeting of of innocents for a belief/strategic aim. So in that sense...for me...savages is an appropriate term for the perpetrators in this case. I feel the same about drone attacks and various offensives across the middle east BTW

 

[coley]

I totally agree that savages in a certain context is viewed as racist. Look at the final solution. Not many would describe the nazis as savages. For me though-its anyone that alllows indiscriminate and deliberate targeting of of innocents for a belief/strategic aim. So in that sense...for me...savages is an appropriate term for the perpetrators in this case. I feel the same about drone attacks and various offensives across the middle east BTW

I a sense I agree, but this is Urban, generalisations are not allowed and must be beaten to death whatever the subject, therefore I suggest describing the actions as savage but the individuals who perpetrated the actions as religiously minded psychopaths.

 

[Humberto]

I totally agree that savages in a certain context is viewed as racist. Look at the final solution. Not many would describe the nazis as savages. For me though-its anyone that alllows indiscriminate and deliberate targeting of of innocents for a belief/strategic aim. So in that sense...for me...savages is an appropriate term for the perpetrators in this case. I feel the same about drone attacks and various offensives across the middle east BTW

Where do you draw the line though? Why THAT word? What about 'heathen' or 'infidel'? Why is that not acceptable?

 

[Pickman's model]

It's savage, barbaric,behaviour, but the people who planned it and executed it are not "savages" in the accepted sense.
Various dictionaries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, brutal psychopathic zealots they certainly are, the murders achieved little more than a 24 hour media/public storm of indignation.
Given that,what will their next trick be? It seems they can kill, abduct and murder, sell into slavery, do what they like really and and as long as they are doing it to each other, we in the west, can go through the motions of shocked horror and indignation and then forget about it.
The IRA, IIRC, invented the 'spectacular' today's terrorist have the means, technology and funds the IRA couldn't have even dreamed about.

pflp at dawson's field

 

[Pickman's model]

I totally agree that savages in a certain context is viewed as racist. Look at the final solution. Not many would describe the nazis as savages. For me though-its anyone that alllows indiscriminate and deliberate targeting of of innocents for a belief/strategic aim. So in that sense...for me...savages is an appropriate term for the perpetrators in this case. I feel the same about drone attacks and various offensives across the middle east BTW

the problem for your definition is the taliban were discriminate in their targeting the other day

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not really. But my knee has stopped jerking. I'm not happy that kids have been butchered by these dogs and people who voice their (admittedly impotent) rage are being taken to task over mere semantics.

Name-calling has a very illustrative history of being rather more than "mere semantics". Peoples from the Irish to the Inuit were considered to be less than human because their massacres were preceded by name-calling. If you call someone "savage", "dog" or "ape", you imply that they're less than human. Once you do that, it's a small step to excusing their killing, and the killing of anyone remotely similar, on the same grounds.

 

[bluescreen]

So it's not OK to kill Taliban, whatever atrocities they commit? I wouldn't shed a tear if they were totally removed from action.

 

[ViolentPanda]

At the end of the day it's about context. I hear the argument 'savages' can be viewed as racist. Myself personally... I felt the exact same way about the US soldiers pissing on dead Iraqi soldiers or the perpetrators of torture and rape in guantanomo Bay.

And yet for all your talk of context, you can't really see the equivalence between acts that are dehumanising, and the dehumanisation inherent to categorising people as "savages".

However. Objectively looking at it. What type of person preplans an attack on school kids? Either they have mental health problems or they believe kids are justifiable targets... And to plan that then carry it out.. Takes a very special cold blooded person. If I choose to describe them as savage it's only because I can't describe them in any other way. The taliban aren't synonymous with savagery. But make no mistake.. They are barbaric savages for what they have done. I won't apologise for my use of the word either.

I thought you said that you were looking at it objectively? All I see above are a series of value judgements, with no attempt at objective analysis.

 

[Spirit Of Slade]

So it's not OK to kill Taliban, whatever atrocities they commit? I wouldn't shed a tear if they were totally removed from action.

Killing them whilst in the act of a terrorist attack = cool

Killing them, 8 kids, 2 goats, a shepherd and half a wedding reception from 25,000 feet = not cool

 

[bluescreen]

Depends who we mean by 'they'.

 

[ViolentPanda]

So it's not OK to kill Taliban, whatever atrocities they commit? I wouldn't shed a tear if they were totally removed from action.

Personally, I'm totally at peace with, and approving of, the visitation of summary justice on those guilty of atrocities, which includes those who planned those atrocities.
What I disapprove very strongly of, is a rhetoric which can very easily distort from meaning "the bastards that did this" to "bastards who might do this because they're members of the same religion/from the same tribe/share a skin colour".

 

[bluescreen]

I mean, there is a world of difference between people who go out and fight and kill other people, and their supporters minding their own business.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But is negotiation possible? To be quite frank, if giving the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds and Uncle Tom Cobbleys marching band their own homelands would settle things down,I think the US, UN, EU etc would be seriously looking into it but it seems to be more about territorial gain and imposing the different factions individual belief system on said 'gained territories'
So you would no sooner have drawn up a new set of borders than the different factions would resume hostilities?

History shows us that apart from occasional regional flare-ups, 1300 years of Islam in that part of the world weren't any more blood-soaked than contemporaneous European history - less so in many ways, given strong Ottoman dominion u until the 16th century - and that a lot of the factionalism was either caused or exacerbated by British and French imperial "divide and rule" policies, along with the farrago of Sykes-Picot, which basically sodomised the Kurds with a rather large and splintery 4" x 4".

The words 'concession, reason and reconciliation' even 'real polotik' don't seem to exist in the world of Islamic extremism.

I'm sorry, but again history doesn't agree with you. All of the above feature in the actions of Islamist extremism. If that weren't the case, Saudi Arabia would have been over-run by now, regardless of how much support the regime gets from US/UK. For another example, the Taliban were perfectly amenable to negotiation with US oil companies; with non-aligned tribal leaders; with warlords when it suited them/was politically-advantageous.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's savage, barbaric,behaviour, but the people who planned it and executed it are not "savages" in the accepted sense.
Various dictionaries >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, brutal psychopathic zealots they certainly are, the murders achieved little more than a 24 hour media/public storm of indignation.

Fuck me, but that's crass and ignorant.
Has it ever occurred to you that such incidents aren't carried out for the reaction of "western" eyes, but for more "local" purposes? Ypu can be sure that in Pakistan and Afghanistan the atrocities have achieved a little more than "a 24 hour media/public storm of indignation".

Given that,what will their next trick be? It seems they can kill, abduct and murder, sell into slavery, do what they like really and and as long as they are doing it to each other, we in the west, can go through the motions of shocked horror and indignation and then forget about it.
The IRA, IIRC, invented the 'spectacular' today's terrorist have the means, technology and funds the IRA couldn't have even dreamed about.

The "spectacular" was invented several thousands of years before the IRA was a dream in an Irish nationalist's eye. Atrocities are as old as the desire of man to rule over man.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think the nazis were savages. I also think the perpetrators in the Rwanda massacre were savages. I also think Anders Brevik was a savage. Where does that leave me...occupying some sort of moral high ground with tinges of racism?

It seems to me that it leaves you with a threadbare philosophy that allows you to pronounce what is or isn't moral.