So you are equating the Taliban, deliberately trying to murder a girl versus Cameron shooting kids in Afghanistan even though you don't have or give proof that British soldiers are deliberately trying to kill children in Afghanistan? I call BS.

Then which country are they attacking? Pakistan? Afghanistan? I don't think, that either position is actually correct.

It would help to make a coherent point, if you have any, if you want to engage in a conversation.

My point is clear for anyone who would like to understand it. Taliban deliberately kill many people and so does the drone attacks of US and the irresponsible attacks of NATO. Why does give so much hype to one case? What's the purpose behind. 

I would agree with you, if you could prove, that the US was directly targeting little girls, just because they don't want to follow US commands. But you can't.

Sure, there is a bit of a hype going on here, partly because one girl survived a bullet to the head and still can argue better than a lot of her peers, but that similiar to blaming Monet for only painting lilies, and ignoring all the other beautiful flowers.

It does, on the other hand, fill me with disgust, that a supporter of the Taliban is allowed to live in my country. If you really are a woman and love the Taliban, why not go and live there and put your money where your mouth is?

And it fills me with utter disgust that some idiots will label people as "supporter of Taliban" out of their pea sized brains and justify shooting them. That is what happens in these countries as well. As long as you are dressed like Talibans and have a beard you can be shot by NATO because you looked "suspected". Where did I support Talibans? Or did you dream that with your non existent brain. Why do you have to poke your nose in something which you cannot understand? Or its out of habit? 

And who are Taliban? The same people who fought the USSR? The same people who got funding from CIA? One day they are called Mujahedeen and one day they wake up and decide to change their names to Talibans. Or do you think they came with an alien space ship? With baren lands, dry mountains and utter poverty how do they get ammunitions worth hundreds and thousands of dollars? Dont you ask these questions or your brain is too small to accomodate so much info and will probably explode?!?

Just to return to the original point: conflicts in far-off countries easily become dehumanized, in that they are just seen as repetetive news items and sets of statistics to a general public that tend to be preoccupied with other things.

The story of one individual who is victimised, suffers and recovers is something that ordinary people can relate to and understand.  In Malala's case, it is believed that she was targetted because of her activism for girls' education, which gives her plight extra resonance.  She has continued her activism and this is why she has had continuing media attention.  I don't think there's any "hype"; I think it's an example of an important subject getting worthwhile coverage.

None of this makes everything else that's going on the region right, but that's hardly her fault or the people who support her.

Was she targeted because she was going to school? I have been to Swat when I was in Pakistan. It is a holiday resort. I was staying at Serena hotel in Swat. It's beautiful and full of girls going to school. It is more conservative like most of the north west of Pakistan and the tribal areas but not as barbaric as you think. I don't have anything against Malala, she is a brave young little girl and I feel sorry for her to be shot. But her going to the most expensive school in UK, her father becoming an embassy attaché from a simple teacher in a village, getting a million pounds before publishing her book, it does sound like a fairy tale no? There are thousands of stories and situations in all the conflict areas but you need backing of powerful people to bring them to light. I am more into the backing she is getting, more into the cause rather than her as an individual. 

And getting nominated for noble prize was not very shocking since the mighty Obama got it already, I don't know for what...

I belive that she was targetted because of her activism for girls' education, rather than because she happened to be on her way to school.

Not quite sure, why you are rambling about the Nobel Peace Prize as Malala did not get it. Plus a majority of Muslim Nobel Prize laureates are from that category...

Equating the Taliban with the Mujahedeen is not accurate. Ahmad Shah Massoud was a Mujahedeen, but certainly not a Taliban. He was murdered by them though. The Taliban are not a genuine Afghanistan movement, but were created in Pakistan by ISI, the secret service in Pakistan who also support terrorist attacks in India.

Oh really? The northern alliance became the ONLY mujahedin? then you really are ignorant about the history of the place! You probably will say that Osama was also not a part of mujahedeen and he didnt fight with USSR with the backing of USA? You need to know the facts before lecturing others on them.....

The place is full of activists, actually the top students from the place who make it to scholarships and good universities in the country happen to be mostly girls. According to her neighbours and people close to her they had personal problems with Talibans, which is something really common in these tribal areas, lots of personal disputes and killings (which is very bad!!) where education and going to school is not involved at all. But thats they story people would like to listen to, so drone attacks and more attacks can be justified one day- to help girls in that barbaric land. 

Unfortunately I share your scepticism, since there have been well documented examples of politicians exploiting situations such as this and entirely fabricating others in order to get their way on quite a large scale.

Mr Andy C. I really appreciate your interest in South Asian politics.

Would you like to tell that who are Talibans?

For your information, Talibans are the Pashtoons and they are in majority in Afghanistan. They don’t want to see any outlander in Afghanistan.

You said Ahmad Shah Massud was a Mujahid and Talibans are terrorists. And Pakistan supports them.

I think you forgot CIA's role in Afghanistan. Ahmad Shah Massud was killed by two Tanzanian reporters. I think it is good for you to find yourself the links between these reporters and CIA…

You are blaming Pakistan-ISI and its role in Afghanistan. Have you ever tried to explore that why USA and NATO are still in Afghanistan??

On Malala : 200 million people live in Pakistan and women are 50% of population. Education is for all. I don't need to tell you the role of women in Pakistan. Fatima Jinnah and Benair Bhutto are the prime examples. Just Google the role of women in Pakistan. Have you ever tried to know that how many times USA has female president?

South Asia has problems because of the "evil intentions" of some major powers.

In short, it is media who is making and breaking the perceptions.

Again, Mr. Andy I really appreciate you for your interest in South Asian politics. But kindly try to understand local perspective. Try to get primary source/ information rather than just depending on newspapers or TV.

Nope.  I didn't say any of that.  You're mixing me up with someone else.

Plus I didn't even say everything you claim me to have said and you do not stay close to other facts either.

Pashtuns are about 40 percent of Afghans therefore not the majority.

And no, I did not say that Taliban are terrorists. I said Pakistan's ISI supports terrorist organisations. Like Mona, you lack intelligence and basic reading skills. And live in La La Land. She claims, that Swat vally is a nice place to visit. That might be, if you are a male Muslim. But most civilized states warn their citizens to travel there.

England had queens ins the 16th hundreds, would you claim therefore, that in England at that time woman had equal rights? Nope. Both of the examples you gave just got the job either because they were related to the former leader of the tribe.

Yeah, evil intentions of some major powers. Muslims all over the world exceed in one game, the blame game. Nothing new. Who is it this time? USA, Russa or the Jews? Or Space Aliens? Sharks with Lasers?

Why USA and NATO are still in Afghanistan and do attacks in Pakistan? Because neither nation is capable to build a stable society. Pakistan isn't even able to control its own territory but put claims of Kashmir. Osama bin Laden lived for years in Pakistan, under the eyes of ISI. The army of Pakistan is unable to controll all of the territory of Pakistan. Both countries are failed states that would turn into an other Somalia, when left on their own.

Mr. Andy, I was referring some facts because they are all interlinked.  

Mr. Alan I don’t want to comment further. You have your own perspective on South Asian politics.

I have different opinion and I follow the primary sources in this regard.

Quote:

"Malala Yousafzai’s Book Is Banned From Many Pakistani Schools Because It Might Lead Muslim Children to Doubt ...

...the president of the All Pakistan Private Schools Federation, said he’s decided to protect Pakistani children from the impertinent book...

“Malala’s defence of Salman Rushdie in the name of freedom of expression; not writing Peace Be Upon Him after the name of prophet Muhammad (PBUH); and criticizing the Quranic injunctions about the status of women in testifying as witnesses.”

... “We can see from her writing that she has not authored the book herself. Even if she has, it creates a lot of doubt amongst our kids regarding religion which we, being Muslims, can never allow.”

Quote end

Source http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/08/malala-yousafzais-book-is-banned-from-many-pakistani-schools-because-it-might-lead-muslim-children-to-doubt/

Banning books and teaching children not to think critically might be the reason, why Muslim countries have so many problems.

Dear Alan, we not here to convince each other but I can help you if you need books/articles/ papers to understand Pakistani perspective.

You are referring here some internet quotes, so it means that these news are your source of information.

As I told you, education is for all in Pakistan. There are many bright young female students from Pakistan. Arfa Karim Randhawa is one of the prime example. Just open this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLSBR5SdmA8

I wish I could answer you here. But you can discuss me in person if you like. Nowadays I am in Geneva for my PhD research.

Good luck

You scold me for linking to an internet source but when you use an internet source, it suddenly is A-OK...

I never claimed, that there were not some bright male and female students from Pakistan. I am more concerned in the basics, than in some exceptions.

Fact is, literacy in Pakistan is one of the lowest worldwide. Girls are doing worse and have lesser chance to survive than boys and are less educated. Having a religion like Islam, where aposty and dissent can lead to death or jail (if you are lucky) are no basis for a healthy society nor for a scientific educated populace.

When attempting to make an argument, an intelligent person should distinguish between religion and the policies and practices of a particular state. The two are not the same.

One clear sign of a failed argument is when you insist that people not ask for proof...You 'droned' yourself with that one.

An intelligent person should know, that religion is manmade and that talking about religion without bearing in mind which place the religion is practiced and the policies of said place/state, does not make a lot of sence. For example, when talking about Christianity and talking about Texas, one shold alread understand, that Christians in Japan or Mexico do not necessarily follow the same rules or have the same concept of Jesus. Ergo when talking about religion in a country, that context is already included.

And one can certainly conclude from your above sweeping and grossly generalized statement that... "Muslims all over the world exceed in one game, the blame game," you are anti-Muslim. 

Of course there are peace-loving and intelligent Muslims all over the world. Your statement reveals not only your ignorance but also your prejudice.

And yet, that is exactly what your generalized statements do not take into consideration. State-sponsored religious practices are distinctly different from individual worship. 

Furthermore, there are, of course, a multitude of sects within specific religions. There are Sunnis and Shiites within the same nation, the same region and the same towns. There are radical conservative Christians as well as Christians who support gay marriage in Texas. 

Religion is a human concept and humans across the globe differ. 

In order to justify calling someone prejudice or ignorant, you would have to prove, that I am either or both.

Merriam Webster defines prejudice as: an adverse opinion or leaning formed without just grounds or before sufficient knowledge

So this makes it even easier for you, as you only have to prove I am ignorant.

TA claimed: "

South Asia has problems because of the "evil intentions" of some major powers.". Don't you see a patern in similiar claims coming from one part of the world? Do I need to give more examples?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Afghanistan

Pashtuns are about 42 % of the Afghan population which is not a majority.

I never said, Massoud was the only Mujahideen, so I am not sure, where I am wrong.

I dont see, that Mona clearly does not support the Taliban.

And I don't see, who those 2 billion people are, you are talking about.

Yep you are right. I didn't know, that in the English language, majority is used in the sence of "the group or party that is the greater part of a large group" even if that group does not have 50 % + 1.

On a second thought, it might be that plurality might be the better term than majority:

Demographics  The term is also used in demographics, to refer to groups, as defined by particular parameters such as ethnicity, religion, or age, which represent the highest percentage of the whole population, when compared to other similarly defined groups, but do not constitute more than 50% of the total population.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_%28voting%29

Alan S, you are trying to learn Majority and Plurality now, we can see that much, you seem to be confused. Without going into microdetails of the words, just think what a common man will use? Without a doubt "majority". So please dont be so anal about majority or minority, according to some sources Pashtoons make more than 50% of the total population. Then there are the tribal areas, which are basically all Pashtoons and they claim to be independent and not belong to AFG or PAK, both countries have little control over them, the area is quite a complicated one and you dont seem to have any knowledge of it but you must give an opinion!

You are entitled to your opinions and you have shown your feelings towards the two countries and Muslims. I dont need to quote them from above, any average person can read and interpret. So better to keep it civilized and polite even if it is too hard for you to do so.....

P.S. instead of wasting your time on wikipedia AND if you are truely interested in knowing more about AFG and the war and the region I can recommend a good watch! it might broaden up your outlook if you sit and watch it without taking your biases with you :) It has two parts, very interesting, "Afghanistan: The great game"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agekmBkqHCw

"Pakistani education activist Malala Yousafzai collects EU's Sakharov prize 

Teenage education activist Malala Yousafzai has called on the EU Parliament to improve children’s access to education. She made the plea while collecting its prestigious Sakharov prize for freedom of thought."

Source: http://www.dw.de/pakistani-education-activist-malala-yousafzai-collects-eus-sakharov-prize/a-17242123