Malala Yousafzai and Kailash Satyarthi win Nobel Peace
- Thread starter AMG
- Start date
- Status
AMG
Herald
So the higher ups are which constitute about 2% of the army, and who wouldnt really be killed in the battle. And the indians which are about 98%.
Let the 98% be killed. Because, hey, gandhi told them to fight for the british. So let Bose come with the useless inhuman barbaric japanese, and lets get out countrymen killed.
Logic!
blr_p
Oracle
I like to think of it as a little girl standing up when the mighty PA could not.
Imagine the shame, this terrorist org must be undergoing
They can silence and fight bigger opponents but not this little girl.
The point of this nobel is to make her untouchable, that means she (and others) are now going to be protected by the state as they were obviously uninterested in doing it before.
You put such a lot of attention on someone as young and you create a life path for her. I think she will fight for what she believes in some way or other.
[DOUBLEPOST=1413120529][/DOUBLEPOST]
They don't have an argument.
personal attacks is a sure sign of a lack of ammo
[DOUBLEPOST=1413120667][/DOUBLEPOST]
I can't see any right wingers in here.
Last edited:
avi
Keymaster
So I am reading about Malala and I still don't any opinions, however I found this interesting from her wikipedia page:
In late 2008, when Aamer Ahmed Khan of the BBC Urdu website and his colleagues had discussed a novel way of covering the Taliban’s growing influence in Swat: Why not find a schoolgirl to blog anonymously about her life there? Their correspondent in Peshawar, Abdul Hai Kakar, had been in touch with a local school teacher, Ziauddin Yousafzai, but couldn’t find any students willing to do it. It was too dangerous, their families said. Finally, Yousafzai suggested his own daughter, 11-year-old Malala. At the time, Taliban militants led by Maulana Fazlullah were taking over the Swat Valley, banning television, music, girls’ education, and women from going shopping. Bodies of beheaded policemen were being hung in town squares. At first, a girl named Aisha from her father's school agreed to write a diary, but then the girl's parents stopped her from doing it because they feared Taliban reprisals. The only alternative was Yousafzai, four years younger than the original volunteer, and in seventh grade at the time. Editors at the BBC unanimously agreed.
In late 2008, when Aamer Ahmed Khan of the BBC Urdu website and his colleagues had discussed a novel way of covering the Taliban’s growing influence in Swat: Why not find a schoolgirl to blog anonymously about her life there? Their correspondent in Peshawar, Abdul Hai Kakar, had been in touch with a local school teacher, Ziauddin Yousafzai, but couldn’t find any students willing to do it. It was too dangerous, their families said. Finally, Yousafzai suggested his own daughter, 11-year-old Malala. At the time, Taliban militants led by Maulana Fazlullah were taking over the Swat Valley, banning television, music, girls’ education, and women from going shopping. Bodies of beheaded policemen were being hung in town squares. At first, a girl named Aisha from her father's school agreed to write a diary, but then the girl's parents stopped her from doing it because they feared Taliban reprisals. The only alternative was Yousafzai, four years younger than the original volunteer, and in seventh grade at the time. Editors at the BBC unanimously agreed.
Yes, I do think drone strikes are effective, at least marginally. World should not /don't not have enough lives and resources to fights terrorists*.* eternally. Collateral damages does happen in every war, we can help & reach out to the victims at the most, that is all. Pak is a state which sponsors terrorism, so complaining from their perspective does not make much sense. Pak's ctual issue is that their territorial integrity is constantly and frequently being violated by USA which pisses them off a lot since they are helpless about it. But, they should also remember what they are doing to their neighbours and precious dollars they receive from USA.
As for Malala's case, drones are not attacking her friends, but her foes specifically . So, why she should be so worried about taliban, etc. than about uplifting women, educating girls, etc. ? Such responses from a young teen like Malala does not make much sense when whole world leaders including President Mr. Obama are doing their best.
As for her studying in girls school, I am actually happy with it. But, she is studying in UK, not is Pak. That is not at all a good and great role model to speak about, for a Nobel winner almost sponsored by international community, BBC, etc.
letmein
Herald
hotshot05
Herald
What has a child got to do with the wrongdoings of a relative of his? Women are not allowed to do anything on their own and so even if they want to run away from their terrorist relatives, they are unable to do so. As a result when the drone strikes, they lose their lives too as collateral damage.
And how are you so sure that the intel is right all the time? They may hit a residential house mistakenly or may be misled intentionally. Many civilians may loose their lives these way. It may seem like a very small collateral damage but if this was your own family, what then?
Are you really sure that just by killing the people on the hit list we will be able to stop the terrorists totally?
Have you seen Munich? The terrorist group who killed the Jewish athletes were taken out one by one. More ruthless people took their place.
And about Malala studying in England, it is a good thing. I have no confidence in the Pakistani army. It is better that she continues her journey in a safe environment. It is not only in Pakistan that girls are not allowed access to education. India is no better in this regards. She is a global icon, not only of Pakistan.
Do you think the Jews should have stayed back in Nazi Germany?
hotshot05
Herald
In Books/editorial columns, the author expresses his opinion regarding a subject. A TV series also serves as a medium by which one expresses one's views. These plant a seed in our mind and we are free to analyse it and form an opinion regarding it.
Before watching it I had never thought about it this way.
What exactly will you need as justification of the evils of drone attacks? A peer reviewed research paper?
Whatever data the Pakistani army or NGO will publish, the US army will straight forward rubbish it.
It's not like it hasn't occurred in the real world. There certainly are civilian casualties in drone strikes.
So, does that mean Pak army /NGO is giving correct figures without selfish interests ? It is also told that several mistakes happened after Pak army purposefully misguided drone strike force about targets. Suddenly everyone here starts trusting Pak army ? That is great to see here on TE, I am also thinking what will be N.Modi's opinion on these drone strikes /s.
Collateral damage is part of every war and drone strikes have capability to reduce collateral damage. If mistakes happened, onus is on attacker to help the victims out, of course.
However, as of now, there are not many other tools with military than drone strikes to reduce hard core terrorist nuts. Human lives should be better utilised elsewhere.
Missions as perfect which removed Osama are extreme difficult and time consuming, so such frequent missions are totally out of question. And that involves specialist human expertise and costly machinery which can be fully lost. A full blown conflict may even be the side effect.
Precision drone strikes with well co-ordinated ground intelligence will greatly reduce the power of terrorist outfits which have no power /capacity to act against such instruments. That is also why Pak is so pissed off against this concept.
Several hundreds of thousands (if not million) got disappeared in Iraq wars, millions suffering in ME region now because of violent uprisings and state sponsored skirmishes. No one cares much about them. But, few misses in precision surgical drone strikes and everyone goes apeshit.
Guys, just can't understand how Nobel Prize committee can equate
an internationally /BBC sponsored teenager with guidance from well to do, well connected father
with
Kailash Satyarthi (even unknown to a good many Indians) who didn't have money to buy milk for his own son but saved thousands of children from slavery fighting against goons of regional business interests ?
As I mentioned earlier, if giving Nobel is just PR business, it should go to celebrities who spent millions on highly reasonable causes, than to the likes of Malala who is an accidental fame.
Pakistan major cities also should have safe places to live for people like Malala. She, if worthy of a Nobel prize, should stay in her country and be a living motivation to people there.
hotshot05, man your comparison of Nazi Germany to current age India is totally out of taste, out of the world and irresponsible. You seems not valuing the freedom and power our country have provided you.
To a great extend, it can be applicable for few regions in Afg-Pak belt, but India ? Get down to real world, please. Pls. stop over projecting and going hyper just to win discussions.
Edit: I'm spending too much time on this thread, I should stop
Last edited:
blr_p
Oracle
hotshot05
Herald
You totally misunderstood me. Read my reply again. What I mentioned about Jews and Nazi Germany is with respect to what will happen if Malala returns to Pakistan. I would have to be completely stoned to say that present day India is anywhere near Germany under the Nazi regime.
avi
Keymaster
I read this quora answer on the topic and I couldn't agree more.
But this answer to the same question justifies it.
But this answer to the same question justifies it.
avi
Keymaster
Great answer, posting here:
Giving Malala Yousafzai the Nobel Peace Prize is like giving the Nobel Prize for Literature to the winner of the National Spelling Bee.
This is nothing to take away from her; she is a tremendously courageous person and, in my opinion, a force for good in the world. She is an inspiration, and everyone in the world should see her as such. It is completely possible – and perhaps even likely, based on her activism so far – that in the decades to come she will have an impact on the world that is worthy of the Nobel Prize. It is also possible she will retire to obscurity, or simply devote her life to projects that turn out to be unsuccessful. We simply don't know; but as courageous a person as she is, she hasn't done much to further the lot of children in the world yet. She was thrust into the international spotlight by a brutal attack, and has impressed us all with her perseverance, intelligence and principles, but she hasn't yet had the time to accomplish much. Winning the Spelling Bee is a tremendous accomplishment, something only a truly exceptional person could achieve – but it's not the same as writing a great work of literature, nor should one of its contestants be judged by that standard.
This is a problem that has dogged the Nobel Peace Prize in recent years – the awarding of speculative prizes in the hope that the recipient will eventually do something to deserve them, the most obvious example being that of Barack Obama when he was elected. In every other field, the prize is awarded to those who have spent a lifetime excelling in their fields, and it is often given only many years after the work it rewards, after the effects of that work have been seen – it takes years for a paper to have a major impact on the world of physics, and it takes years for a person or an organisation to do something that truly makes the world a better place.
In every news story I've seen, Yousafzai gets top billing while Satyarthi is relegated to a subheadline, sometimes not even getting a picture. Yet his organisation has helped, if the reporting is correct, tens of thousands of children in a very tangible way. This is an achievement worthy of the prize; Yousafzai, meanwhile, has done very little on the ground, having mostly completed books and speeches for a Western audience. No knock against her - no one could have accomplished much in such a short time at such an age! - but the fact is the prize is supposed to be a reward for accomplishments, not a statement of support for someone who might have them in the future. The standards of the Peace Prize aren't really appropriate for someone like her who is only just starting out her humanitarian activist career – none of us know if that career will be worthy of such an award, though of course we hope it is.
There's a larger point, however, that has nothing to do with Yousafzai or Satyarthi, and that's the obsession with 'awareness' that has gripped so much of the West – there seems to be a belief that making Westerners aware of the injustices of the world is more important than helping the victims of those injustices. Many recent recipients of the prize have been these kinds of symbolic nods to Western public opinion, as though the committee was using the prize as a million-dollar upvote, wanting to indicate that they like Obama's speeches, they like speaking out against the PRC, they like inspirational schoolgirls. And those were all good things! But ultimately, people are being judged by the media impact they have in the West, not by what they accomplish for the people they're trying to help. Satyarthi has organised to help children in India escape child labour, and lobbied his government to change its laws. Yousafzai may be an inspiration, but her impact on Western public opinion has been far, far greater than her impact on schooling in Pakistan, but it seems that nowadays, the former is far more important than the latter.
Malala Yousafzai may one day deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but she certainly doesn't today.
Giving Malala Yousafzai the Nobel Peace Prize is like giving the Nobel Prize for Literature to the winner of the National Spelling Bee.
This is nothing to take away from her; she is a tremendously courageous person and, in my opinion, a force for good in the world. She is an inspiration, and everyone in the world should see her as such. It is completely possible – and perhaps even likely, based on her activism so far – that in the decades to come she will have an impact on the world that is worthy of the Nobel Prize. It is also possible she will retire to obscurity, or simply devote her life to projects that turn out to be unsuccessful. We simply don't know; but as courageous a person as she is, she hasn't done much to further the lot of children in the world yet. She was thrust into the international spotlight by a brutal attack, and has impressed us all with her perseverance, intelligence and principles, but she hasn't yet had the time to accomplish much. Winning the Spelling Bee is a tremendous accomplishment, something only a truly exceptional person could achieve – but it's not the same as writing a great work of literature, nor should one of its contestants be judged by that standard.
This is a problem that has dogged the Nobel Peace Prize in recent years – the awarding of speculative prizes in the hope that the recipient will eventually do something to deserve them, the most obvious example being that of Barack Obama when he was elected. In every other field, the prize is awarded to those who have spent a lifetime excelling in their fields, and it is often given only many years after the work it rewards, after the effects of that work have been seen – it takes years for a paper to have a major impact on the world of physics, and it takes years for a person or an organisation to do something that truly makes the world a better place.
In every news story I've seen, Yousafzai gets top billing while Satyarthi is relegated to a subheadline, sometimes not even getting a picture. Yet his organisation has helped, if the reporting is correct, tens of thousands of children in a very tangible way. This is an achievement worthy of the prize; Yousafzai, meanwhile, has done very little on the ground, having mostly completed books and speeches for a Western audience. No knock against her - no one could have accomplished much in such a short time at such an age! - but the fact is the prize is supposed to be a reward for accomplishments, not a statement of support for someone who might have them in the future. The standards of the Peace Prize aren't really appropriate for someone like her who is only just starting out her humanitarian activist career – none of us know if that career will be worthy of such an award, though of course we hope it is.
There's a larger point, however, that has nothing to do with Yousafzai or Satyarthi, and that's the obsession with 'awareness' that has gripped so much of the West – there seems to be a belief that making Westerners aware of the injustices of the world is more important than helping the victims of those injustices. Many recent recipients of the prize have been these kinds of symbolic nods to Western public opinion, as though the committee was using the prize as a million-dollar upvote, wanting to indicate that they like Obama's speeches, they like speaking out against the PRC, they like inspirational schoolgirls. And those were all good things! But ultimately, people are being judged by the media impact they have in the West, not by what they accomplish for the people they're trying to help. Satyarthi has organised to help children in India escape child labour, and lobbied his government to change its laws. Yousafzai may be an inspiration, but her impact on Western public opinion has been far, far greater than her impact on schooling in Pakistan, but it seems that nowadays, the former is far more important than the latter.
Malala Yousafzai may one day deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, but she certainly doesn't today.
blr_p
Oracle
Does anyone know what the criteria for awarding a nobel peace prize even is ?
nobody knows as it isn't a transparent process. One can speculate but if you look at the list of winners over the years does it hold all the way or only for a few.
So arguing for or against is pointless. What basis to use FOR or AGAINST.
it seems what is being discussed here is whether she deserves to win it or not. well, that still has to deal with the first question.
nobody knows as it isn't a transparent process. One can speculate but if you look at the list of winners over the years does it hold all the way or only for a few.
So arguing for or against is pointless. What basis to use FOR or AGAINST.
it seems what is being discussed here is whether she deserves to win it or not. well, that still has to deal with the first question.
manoja2k
Forerunner
My two paise worth,
No doubt Malala has done a brave thing standing up against Talibans. No doubt she has done something which many cannot dare to do. Yes she has done something to inspire a whole community. Great!!. But then does she deserve a Nobel? Has she done sufficiently and for sufficient period to have an impact on a wider community? In my opinion it 's a big 'No' for both the above questions. She may be awarded nationally or even by UN or even by a renowned organization. But a Nobel!! Can't digest this fact, unless I bring down the image of Nobel prize before my eyes.
Yes it was a mistake awarding Mr. Obama with Nobel peace prize but repeating that mistake is not the way to make it right. If this thing continues then Nobel will just be another prize like many more.
No doubt Malala has done a brave thing standing up against Talibans. No doubt she has done something which many cannot dare to do. Yes she has done something to inspire a whole community. Great!!. But then does she deserve a Nobel? Has she done sufficiently and for sufficient period to have an impact on a wider community? In my opinion it 's a big 'No' for both the above questions. She may be awarded nationally or even by UN or even by a renowned organization. But a Nobel!! Can't digest this fact, unless I bring down the image of Nobel prize before my eyes.
Yes it was a mistake awarding Mr. Obama with Nobel peace prize but repeating that mistake is not the way to make it right. If this thing continues then Nobel will just be another prize like many more.
If she can encourage the girls / women of South Asia to strife to be educated, and us men to allow that. I think she has done more than enough. Way beyond a Nobel even. They have started to give the Peace One, proactively. Obama got it thus. That is what I feel....!
srkmish
Forerunner
These all are nothing but popularity contest at best. There are so many altruists working behind the scenes selflessly but they will never be recognized nor given any funding, but they trudge along owing to the sheer passion they carry for the betterment of mankind.[DOUBLEPOST=1413304382][/DOUBLEPOST]I personally think if a person is dedicated to his craft/mission, he won't care a cent about this prize or that prize. Everyone should strive to be like Sartre ( Who rejected Nobel prize ).
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1964/dec/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/1964/dec/17/sartre-on-the-nobel-prize/
- Status