I've been reading a lot about Malala Yousafzai in the news, and I
watched both her Daily Show interview and recent UN speech. While I
find her story and message truly inspiring, I believe some of her
pacifist views are naive. When she says that the Taliban should be
confronted by peaceful dialogue and education, but never violence, I
can't help but think that this alone would accomplish nothing. Of
course, education and dialogue are a crucial part of the solution of
dismantling the Taliban, and really combating any political or religious
terrorist movement. However, these organizations seem so steadfast in
their beliefs and principles that I don't think anything short of pure
force will be able to stop them. After all, you have to admit that it
takes an impressive amount of commitment to your ideals to point a gun
at a child's head and pull the trigger. I simply don't believe that
challenging the principles of somebody so utterly committed will be
effective, and unfortunately, the only solution is to point the gun back
at them.
Ardinius
Of course, education and dialogue are a crucial part of the solution
of dismantling the Taliban, and really combating any political or
religious terrorist movement.
Education and dialogue, can in fact be, a crucial part that
adds to the problem of combating any terrorist movement. The Taliban, for instance, rounds up and
conscripts children
at young ages from fundamentalist Islamic schools (madrassas). Once
conscripted they are heavily indoctrinated, even to the point of
becoming
suicide bombers . By the time they are adults fighting for the Taliban, they have experienced a childhood full of
abuse and have most likely witnessed their families being terrorized by rival tribes or by Foreign Military Forces.
these organizations seem so steadfast in their beliefs and principles
that I don't think anything short of pure force will be able to stop
them.
Is it not, precisely a lifetime of being
exposed to force and violence that is
specifically
the reason for such steadfast beliefs that are held in the first place?
The Taliban are among the fiercest warriors of the world, they have
been exposed to the full brunt of military power of
both the world's Super Powers within the past three decades.
They don't exist despite the violence and force enacted against them through out their history, they exist
because of it. Violence makes such people,
even more extreme,
even more bold in their views, and
even more hardened as a warrior. So far from a solution, pure force functions as an
enabler of terrorist organisations like the Taliban.
But let's go back to our point about education. Given that we would
both agree that Malala's story would be fairly inconsequential for the
people of the Wartorn villages and regional areas of Afghanistan and
Pakistan; those who are poorly educated and can barely read and write;
those who would hardly consider the story of a single teenage girl being
shot as game chaning news given the
Dance Party Beheadings ,
Air strike Weddings , and the long history of atrocities that have been occuring in the region for
decades ; Let's look at the
real significance of the Malala story, and relate it back to how education and dialogue can actually
assist Terror.
Let us first establish, that a
significant threat to civilian lives in regional Pakistian and Afghanistan in the last four years, is the
Military Industrial Complex of the West.
Let us then address something that has been
completely overlooked through out the entirety of this thread, and that is the significance of the Malala story
for the Western World .
The story is a
feel good one – flown to the UK for
rehabilitation, the Western world can feel good about itself as they
saved the life of an innocent young native girl who spoke some of the
West's most virtuous values to the savage men of her home nation.
There is an underlying message here however, and it happens to be
precisely the one you picked up on.
you have to admit that it takes an impressive amount of commitment to
your ideals to point a gun at a child's head and pull the trigger. I
simply don't believe that challenging the principles of somebody so
utterly committed will be effective, and unfortunately, the only
solution is to point the gun back at them.
And this is where the magic happens. In what amounts to an excellent instance of doublespeak and flawless PR, this story
reinforces the presence of the Western Military Industrial complex in the region,
despite
the fact that Malala's message is one of peace. Her message of human
rights, universal education, pacifism and Women's issues emboldens the
hearts of people in the West while
simultaneously passing through the
exact
sentiment that you picked up on (i.e while her message is beautiful, it
is naive, and extremists must be dealt with by force), and it's all
done with sublime subtly, under the radar and straight from the mouth of
a native from the nation
itself . The most effective messages are often the one's we don't even know we're receiving.
And thus unvieled the true brilliance of Malala's story, and it's
incredible potency to 'educate' the people of the west on why the terror
and atrocities committed in these far away lands are justified. It is a
piece of propaganda that would make Goebells pee in his panties.
Such a pity that so many people are so ready to sympathise with
Malala's story without being able to analyse it critically for it's
significance in the West.
Afterall, if we
really cared about the inexcusable Atrocities in this region, we would all be speaking the name of
Abeer Qassim Hamza , not Malala.
DrinkDrank
∆
Whoa. That just blew my mind. Am I being brainwashed to be critical of pacifism by a pacifist message?
