Eight of Ten Malala Attackers Were Allowed To Walk Free

[rockstar08]

God just give it a rest

lemon pani pila yaar ... demagh garam ho gaya

 

[F.O.X]

Rubbish ...
The familiy suffered. She suffered. At least she is safe. What is wrong with that?
Many people sell including yours ..
Don't go down that road ..

No She did not suffer as much as she benefited from it, you do know that she is a multi millionaire now, and that to without doing a single days work. she is arrogant and only looks for her own interest or as her father tells her.

Btw you do know that there was another girl that was injured in that attack along side malala, Care to mention her Name without googling ??? she is currently going to the same school, so tell me who is more brave and who is an opportunist ?

 

[Thorough Pro]

LOL, get some fresh air mate and chill

have you seen the images , videos right after the surgery ? i once hit by a stone in head and get a very little cut , and for that doctors need to remove the hair from my head in order to give me stitches ..and you are telling me that her whole surgery was done with a single hair loss ?
ok that will be conspiracy theory for you , so lets drop it ..

now , what happen to other 2 girls been shot with malala ? what happen to those millions of kids daily fighting fear of Taliban and go to school ? remember Atizaz Hussain ??
have you ever see polio workers team ?? there are young girls who are serving nation , despite the threats they get ..
none of them become the headline for Western Media , and this one girl get all of the sudden get so much fame , almost get noble prize for what ??? please do tell me the Achievement of her ... in KU , almost every second Professor gets life threats , still they go out to educate people ... despite all threats kids go to school , look at the kids of Peshawar school ? did they run away to UK ? no they are going in same school where their friends been butchered , and they get bullets , this is bravery ... only people like Malala's fathers can run away from the Country , to get perks and job in UN ..
i have love respect for those kids of Peshawar , those polio workers , but for Malala and her father , they can go to hell ..

 

[Lord ZeN]

The trial had absolutely no credibility as nobody was there to witness it but a public prosecutor, a judge, the army and the accused.”

Was it a military court ?

 

[Musafir117]

Was it a military court ?

Don't wanna be rude here it's our domestic issue and not concern with India, advice is free goggle it out.

 

[ito]

I knew this is going to happen.

Mumbai terrorists and Malala attackers are good terrorists.

Killer of Peshawar kids are bad terrorists.

Until Pakistan realizes that there is no bad and good in terrorism. Attackers of innocents in Mumbai and attackers of Malala will roam freely in Pakistan, and violence in Pakistan will never subside.

 

[ryzvonusef]

I'm surprised that even after APS, we refuse to believe a terrorist could have killed a school girl.

 

[rockstar08]

LOL, get some fresh air mate and chill

don't quote me if you have nothing better to post ..

 

[Solomon2]

Secrets And Lies
June 07, 2015/

Malala Yousufzai’s saga is one that is perhaps open to the most differing interpretations than any other published news story; with large portions of the populace still embroiled in heated debates over the actual facts of the incident and busy spinning wild conspiracy theories. The recent news, that of the ten attackers that targeted Malala, only two have been actually convicted, as opposed to the previous reports that all ten were given life imprisonment, does nothing to assuage public fears of a conspiracy or a cover-up. Furthermore, it goes a long way in damaging the government’s, and in this case specifically, the military’s credibility.

From start to finish the whole case has been shrouded in secrecy; no one was aware that these men were arrested in relation to Malala until an ISPR press statement – which is curios since none of these men are those who were originally named as the perpetrators. No one was aware that a trial was taking place until their conviction was announced – which makes one wonder who represented these men in court and who were the witnesses. While these facts raised eyebrows, in Pakistan’s flawed, multifaceted and often secretive judicial system, such anomalies are not unknown. Yet the revelation that only two men were convicted is a separate matter; the public was wilfully and maliciously lied to. Muneer Ahmed, a spokesperson for the Pakistani High Commission in London said that the original judgement acquitted the eight men for lack of evidence and blamed misreporting for the confusion created. This is again, clearly untrue. All officials maintained that ten people had been convicted, and even if the judgement was misreported, no one, not the judge, the prosecution, the government or the army, came forward to correct them.

The state’s incentive to lie can be easily understood – never condoned though – Malala was becoming an international symbol, and her increasing stature meant Pakistan’s failure to apprehend her attackers stuck out all the more prominently. Coupled with the recent operation against militants; the news that all ten attackers was successfully apprehended definitely eased international pressure, but at what cost? The government misrepresented the truth to present a better image of their own endeavours. If they can lie to the public in such high-profile cases, what is to stop them from doing so in mundane ones where the scrutiny is laxer. This revelation makes one wonder how any of the ‘hardcore terrorists’ convicted by the government and the military courts are actually terrorists? Were their convictions achieved to make a more embellished and publishable press release? The government, and especially the military authorities who so triumphantly declared these arrests, must explain why they lied to the public, and why was this lie sustained?

 

[salarsikander]

Secrets And Lies
June 07, 2015/

Malala Yousufzai’s saga is one that is perhaps open to the most differing interpretations than any other published news story; with large portions of the populace still embroiled in heated debates over the actual facts of the incident and busy spinning wild conspiracy theories. The recent news, that of the ten attackers that targeted Malala, only two have been actually convicted, as opposed to the previous reports that all ten were given life imprisonment, does nothing to assuage public fears of a conspiracy or a cover-up. Furthermore, it goes a long way in damaging the government’s, and in this case specifically, the military’s credibility.

From start to finish the whole case has been shrouded in secrecy; no one was aware that these men were arrested in relation to Malala until an ISPR press statement – which is curios since none of these men are those who were originally named as the perpetrators. No one was aware that a trial was taking place until their conviction was announced – which makes one wonder who represented these men in court and who were the witnesses. While these facts raised eyebrows, in Pakistan’s flawed, multifaceted and often secretive judicial system, such anomalies are not unknown. Yet the revelation that only two men were convicted is a separate matter; the public was wilfully and maliciously lied to. Muneer Ahmed, a spokesperson for the Pakistani High Commission in London said that the original judgement acquitted the eight men for lack of evidence and blamed misreporting for the confusion created. This is again, clearly untrue. All officials maintained that ten people had been convicted, and even if the judgement was misreported, no one, not the judge, the prosecution, the government or the army, came forward to correct them.

The state’s incentive to lie can be easily understood – never condoned though – Malala was becoming an international symbol, and her increasing stature meant Pakistan’s failure to apprehend her attackers stuck out all the more prominently. Coupled with the recent operation against militants; the news that all ten attackers was successfully apprehended definitely eased international pressure, but at what cost? The government misrepresented the truth to present a better image of their own endeavours. If they can lie to the public in such high-profile cases, what is to stop them from doing so in mundane ones where the scrutiny is laxer. This revelation makes one wonder how any of the ‘hardcore terrorists’ convicted by the government and the military courts are actually terrorists? Were their convictions achieved to make a more embellished and publishable press release? The government, and especially the military authorities who so triumphantly declared these arrests, must explain why they lied to the public, and why was this lie sustained?

Hi,

Hypocrisy from this Bani-Israel is nothing new. I can recall this famous proverb
By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War.

[/IMG]

Her blonde hair, megaphone and orange fluorescent jacket with reflective stripes made 23-year-old Rachel Corrie easily identifiable as an international activist on the overcast spring afternoon in 2003 when she tried to stop an advancing Israeli military bulldozer.

The young American's intention was to prevent the demolition of a Palestinian home in Rafah refugee camp, close to the border between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Scores of homes had already been crushed; Corrie was one of eight American and British volunteers acting as human shields for local families.

"She was standing on top of a pile of earth," said fellow activist and eyewitness Richard Purssell, from Brighton, at the time. "The driver cannot have failed to see her. As the blade pushed the pile, the earth rose up. Rachel slid down the pile. It looks as if her foot got caught. The driver didn't slow down; he just ran over her. Then he reversed the bulldozer back over her again."

The question of whether the driver of the Caterpillar D9R bulldozer saw the young woman in the orange jacket, and drove deliberately at and over her, has been at the centre of the Corrie family's decade-long battle for accountability and justice.

On Tuesday that struggle is set to culminate when an Israeli court gives its verdict in a civil lawsuit that the family have brought against the state of Israel.

An Israeli Defence Forces investigation has already found that its forces were not to blame and that the bulldozer driver had not seen the activist. No charges were brought and the case was closed. The IDF report concluded: "Rachel Corrie was not run over by an engineering vehicle but rather was struck by a hard object, most probably a slab of concrete which was moved or slid down while the mound of earth which she was standing behind was moved." Corrie and other International Solidarity Movement (ISM) activists were accused by the investigators of "illegal, irresponsible and dangerous" behaviour.

But witness accounts gathered in Rafah in the aftermath of Corrie's death on 16 March 2003 suggest little doubt as to what happened. According to Tom Dale, from Lichfield in Staffordshire: "the bulldozer went towards her very slowly, she was fully in clear view, straight in front of them".

Corrie tried to scramble on top of the earth being pushed into a mound by the bulldozer blades. "Unfortunately she couldn't keep her grip there and she started to slip down. You could see she was in serious trouble, there was panic in her face as she was turning around. All the activists there were screaming, running towards the bulldozer, trying to get them to stop. But they just kept on going," Dale said. The incident lasted around six or seven seconds.

orrie was taken by a Red Crescent ambulance to the Najar hospital, arriving at the emergency room at 5.05pm. She was still alive – just. At 5.20pm she was declared dead. It was, the Israeli military said later that day, a "very regrettable accident".

Rachel Corrie had arrived in the Holy Land on January 22, a young woman brimming with idealism, anger at injustice, and a determination to make a difference, however small.

She had volunteered for the ISM, an organisation of pro-Palestinian activists who engage in direct action against the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

After two days of training workshops, Corrie headed for Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip. In early 2003, Israeli troops, tanks and armoured vehicles were a daily presence in Rafah and other cities. Snipers were stationed in watchtowers; helicopters and military planes buzzed in the skies.

The second intifada, or Palestinian uprising, had begun more than two years before, and suicide bombers were being regularly despatched from Gaza and the West Bank to cause death and destruction in Israel.

Death and destruction was also a feature of life in Gaza. Corrie was shocked by what she saw. "No amount of reading, attendance at conferences, documentary viewing and word of mouth could have prepared me for the reality of the situation here. You just cannot imagine it unless you see it," she wrote in one of her many emails to family and friends at home in Olympia, Washington state, on 7 February.

Three weeks later, she told her mother, Cindy, in an email: "I'm witnessing this chronic, insidious genocide and I'm really scared, and questioning my fundamental belief in the goodness of human nature. This has to stop. I think it's a good idea for all of us to drop everything and devote our lives to making it stop... Disbelief and horror is what I feel."

Corrie and other ISM activists in Rafah were mainly engaged in trying to obstruct house demolitions being carried out by the IDF, which said the targeted homes were suspected of sheltering militants or concealing the entrances to tunnels dug under the border with Egypt to facilitate the smuggling of weapons and explosives. The activists said the demolitions were collective punishment for the actions of a minority of militants.

The presence of international activists was a nuisance for the IDF, but the military was not to be deterred. "During war there are no civilians," an IDF training officer later told Haifa district court during a hearing into the Corrie family's civil lawsuit, implying that militants, Palestinian civilians and international activists were all legitimate targets.

A Israeli military spokesman described ISM activists as "a group of protesters who were acting very irresponsibly, putting everyone in danger — the Palestinians, themselves and our forces — by intentionally placing themselves in a combat zone."

But Corrie's death caused an outcry far greater than that of any Palestinian. According to the Observer, nine Palestinians, including a girl, 4, and 90-year-old man, were killed on the same day. But inevitably the death of young American woman made headlines around the world and caused serious diplomatic reverberations.

The next day, Israel's then prime minister, Ariel Sharon, promised US president George W Bush that Israel would conduct a "thorough, credible and transparent" investigation into the incident.

Corrie's body was taken by the Israeli authorities to the National Centre of Forensic Medicine in Tel Aviv, where an autopsy was conducted. No report was published but, according to Human Rights Watch, the conclusion was that death was caused by "pressure on the chest ... with fractures of the ribs and vertebrae ... and tear wounds in the right lung with haemorrhaging of the pleural cavities".

The Corrie family was not satisfied with the IDF report. Seven years after their daughter's death, in March 2010, they launched a civil case against the state of Israel, accusing its military of either unlawfully or intentionally killing Corrie or of gross negligence. It was, said the family, "absolutely our last resort".

Sporadic hearings dragged on for 18 months. The court heard testimony from four ISM activists who witnessed the incident, but a Gaza doctor who examined Corrie's wounds was refused an entry permit to Israel to give evidence.

The driver of the bulldozer, whose identity has not been made public, testified from behind a screen for "security reasons". He repeatedly insisted that the first time he saw the activist was when she was already dying: "I didn't see her before the incident. I saw people pulling the body out from under the earth."

When the hearings ended in July last year, Corrie's mother Cindy said the family was "at this moment in much the same place as we were when they began – up against a wall of Israeli officials determined to protect the state at all costs, including at the expense of truth."

Last week, back in Israel for the verdict in the civil lawsuit, Cindy told the Guardian the ruling would be "a milestone" in the family's long battle for justice and accountability. "The lawsuit is only one part of what we've done. There has still been no 'thorough, credible and transparent' investigation into Rachel's death. Whatever happens, this is not the end."

 

[me_itsme]

What do you expect from a nation full of terrorist supporters. Atleast they support terrorists irrespective of their religion haha [very evident from a particular thread] that way Pakistanis are very liberal. Please keep up the good job.