Malala Yusufzai: Victim of Barbaric Terror and Dirty Politics

[Zarvan]

I post the link below to an article by Hamid Mir, who I think is a covert Taliban sympathizer. He has received a 7 page letter from Taliban justifying attack of Malala. The article is in Urdu but I am addressing Pakistani Taliban apologists of this forum, they should be able to read it. I humbly request all those who have a soft spot for Taliban ( many of these members I hold in high regard) to kindly read it and comment; do they still think that Taliban are being wrongly blamed and that attack was a hoax with the sole objective of inventing a pretext for military action on North Waziristan?

Hamid Mir- qalam kaman- dhamki ka jawab - Jang Columns

Sir first no one comes in front even I can sent a letter and claim the incident how will the prove it and by the your Army was the one who started attacking Tribal areas in 2003 after 4 years of facing attacks in 2007 TTP is formed and they start attacking Pakistan before 2003 their was no such incidents we had sectarian issues and the groups who were involved in these actions were living in major cities and this issues could have solved but now they have made it far more complex and if you think keep attacking them will solve the issue go ahead even after 100 years you will be not able to solve this issue

 

[Mujraparty]

Attacker of Pakistani schoolgirl was held, freed in 2009

Attacker of Pakistani schoolgirl was held, freed in 2009: Sources - The Times of India

"He spent three months in the custody of security forces but was freed after no evidence (of wrongdoing) was found," one official said.

 

[Solomon2]

Pakistanis debate real enemy: girl-shooting Taliban or drone-firing US

The news that the Taliban shot 14-year-old Malala Yousufzai for speaking out against them has sparked debate that highlights a major division in Pakistan.


By Taha Siddiqui, Correspondent / October 18, 2012

In this Saturday, Oct. 13, photo, Pakistani students hold pictures of 14-year-old schoolgirl Malala Yousufzai, who was shot by the Taliban for speaking out against them, during a protest condemning the attack, in Karachi, Pakistan. Fareed Khan/AP


SWAT VALLEY, PAKISTAN

The news that the Taliban shot a 14-year-old girl for speaking out against them has highlighted a major division in Pakistan over the question of which is worse: the United States or militants?

On one side are civil society members and some ethnic and religious minorities who find the attack on the girl, Malala Yousufzai, atrocious and are calling for action against the Taliban.

“There are many in our valley who would not dare to name the Taliban, but she spoke against them. We cannot deny her sacrifice,” says Khairullah Sina of Swat Valley, who works in the education sector and knows Malala.

Hundreds of protesters from civil society gathered in Islamabad, Karachi, and Lahore to protest the shooting, and have been calling for the Pakistani Army to head up a military operation in North Waziristan to tamp down on militants in the region.

On the other side are the citizens who are criticizing the international community and media for giving her case “more than the attention it deserves.”

There seems to be a concerted effort to tie the Malala incident to the unrelated issue of US drone attacks in Pakistan, says Baqir Sajjad Syed, who writes on foreign affairs and defense issues for the English-language newspaper Dawn.

Sanaullah, a teacher in Swat and an acquaintance of Malala's father, who goes only by one name, says he doesn't understand why international media cares so much about the attack on Malala when there are greater issues that need to be addressed.

"Every time there is a drone attack, innocent children and women are killed. We should also condemn that since it is equally unjust but no one is highlighting it," he says.

The US says it has no other choice than to use drones to rout out militants in areas like North Waziristan, but many Pakistanis complain that it is a violation of sovereignty and causes civilian casualties. It’s an issue that is used often by right-wing Islamists to whip up anti-Americanism.

He points out that shortly after the attack, right-wing Islamists and most of the Urdu media started asking the question: “Who used Malala?” That question, he says, implies that the US is actually the enemy.

Just as there have been a number of opinion articles praising Malala’s bravery, there have also been doctored images circulating on the Internet. The images of young, injured children falsely claim to be showing drone attack victims. Some have even circulated images of Malala sitting with American officials and have called her a “US agent.”

Military - civilian divides

The divide can also be seen in the military’s response, say analysts

“This is a double game of national security, which the military has played historically,” Syed says, pointing out that the military built its image both locally and abroad by being at the forefront of efforts to provide Malala medical care and also by issuing statements that they were ready to take on the terrorists.

The initial mobilization of civil society in support of Malala sent a message globally that people of Pakistan are not pro-Taliban, says Sarfaraz Khan, who teaches at the Peshawar University. “Initially, even the military responded very positively," he says.

But the civil society and military have now appeared to retreat to two different corners of the debate, and are further divided among themselves.

The military seems to be split over whether it should actually go into North Waziristan and rout out militants. “While the young blood in the military has started calling the Taliban terrorists, the older generation still wants to live in strategic alliances of the ‘80s and '90s, in which we saw the military having close relations with the Taliban in Afghanistan,” says Professor Khan.

Pointing to the lack of consensus in the Parliament about passing a resolution in favor of a North Waziristan operation in light of the attack on Malala, Khan says Parliament is another place the divide is visible.

“Political parties headed by Imran Khan, Nawaz Sharif, and others, whose traditional voting constituencies lie with Islamists and in whipping up anti-Americanism, do not want to lose voters at a time when elections are near, and that is why they are creating a counter public narrative,” he says.

 

[Kompromat]

^CSM: Indeed a very credible source. Drone strikes produce militants that attacked malala, the argument is the drones being counterproductive but some dark souls are simply unable to understand it.

 

[Solomon2]

^CSM: Indeed a very credible source. Drone strikes produce militants that attacked malala, the argument is the drones being counterproductive but some dark souls are simply unable to understand it.

The question is, with so many major parties asserting an anti-Malala stance, why is the MQM the only big party to express real support for her? Why hasn't the political divide widened appreciably to present Pakistanis with more clear-cut alternatives?

 

[niaz]

It could be that MQM represents second and third generation of the Muslims of India who genuinely believed in the message of Quaid a Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah whose vision of Pakistan was that of a progressive liberal state, certainly not that of a theocratic Sunni state. I am not an MQM supporter nor am I am an Altaf Hussein fan; but I do believe that non-sectarian and interfaith harmony policy (not the ethnic policy) of MQM correctly reflects what the founding fathers of Pakistan had in mind.

On the other hand, Jamaat Islami; Jamiat ulema Islam and other Deobandi parties were anti-Muslim League and against creation of Pakistan. Many of today’s Muslim –N activists as well as rich feudals of Punjab belonged to the Unionist Party headed by Khizr Hayat Tiwana that wanted to remain united with India. Once Pakistan became a “Fait accompli”, this section of the society tried to hijack Pakistan movement. Retrogressive forces of Pakistan comprise mainly of the second and third generation of this anti-Pakistan polity. Their attempts to destroy Quaid’s Pakistan and replace with a theocratic state continue unabated.

All of us; this includes me; are to blame for the narrow minded bigotry and sectarianism that prevails in Pakistan today. We kept quite when elected government of ZA Bhutto was overthrown by the bigot Zia ul Haq. Only Allah know how long Pakistanis would continue to be punished for the bigotry that Zia up Haq and his Jamaat Islami allies perpetrated in the name of Islam. I quote a blog from the daily ‘Dawn’ which aptly described the situation in Pakistan.

Quote

The negligent PakistaniS. Azam Mahmood | DAWN.COM

On October 9, 2012, Malala Yousafzai, at 14-years-old, was shot in the head and neck. This changed a lot of grey in Pakistan to an unwavering black and white. A wave of introspection began to take its course. People began to realise that there was a choice: the future Malala wanted, or something else (whatever that something else was).

For most, this came as a mix of shock, resentment and disgust, all directed towards the incident itself. For me, it was a source of sorrow and disdain – because we let this incident take place.

They say that the Taliban are to blame for this, but to me that seems like the easy answer. Easy because it’s obvious; easy because it’s convenient. This vast oversimplification of who’s at fault is blatantly indicative of who is really responsible. Upon this, my sorrow solidifies to frustration, my disdain to anger.

An atmosphere of fear has pervaded its way into every breath of being Pakistani, and I am disturbed that we have allowed it to do so. When 27 bullets claimed Salmaan Taseer because he spoke out against the misuse of a law used to persecute minorities, Pakistan was quiet. Before his death, there was an influx of articles, of people charged with emotion, ready to struggle to amend the law for a better Pakistan. After his death, politicians were silenced. People stood dumbly as the threat of death become so much more real. I blame the Pakistani society for allowing this fear to perpetuate.

Pakistanis have shown that they, collectively or individually, are not ready to stand for causes that they believe in. But Malala is different. And her perseverance, her dedication should make us all ashamed. She is not a product of the Pakistani society or the Pakistani mentality. She started writing at 11 – not in a comparatively safe haven like Karachi or Lahore, but in Swat; not from a privileged background with no security threat and generous wealth, but from a modest one. She didn’t grow up with the opportunities that you and I grew up with, or the access to information or knowledge that you and I had thrown at us, yet she grew up stronger. She grew up better.

Now, once the damage has been done, we acquire a voice. Incidents like this spark passionate responses from us Pakistanis. We champion such causes as our own, though always when it’s too late. But what’s worse is our half-hardheartedness; what’s worse is how minimally we contribute, how ineffectively we help.

People took to Facebook and Twitter to vent their frustration. But history suggests that this is going to be just another link shared, another disapproving status written, or, if one were very generous, another profile picture changed. We did this for the Blasphemy Law. We did this for the flood. We did this for Shahbaz Taseer. We did this for the Ahmadis. We did this, and we forgot. We moved on.

We often ask in dejection: What can our one voice do. Turn to Malala; look at what it can do. It gets arguably the most feared faction in the world to dread a 14-year-old girl. She stood alone and defended her cause because she knew that if she wouldn’t, no one would. She was – is – “scared of no one”.

Malala stood for her cause from the tender age of 11 – something we cannot, and should not forget. She stood for her cause and did not let herself get distracted. We are slowly doing the opposite. News of her health and condition flooded media outlets. Politicians, policymakers and people ran to her defense, condemning the act as one of cowardice, one of terror. But few condemned the Taliban. This was treated as an incident, not the manifestation of a mindset.

People now argue whether Madonna’s tribute in the form of a striptease was too scandalous, or why the media doesn’t focus on the innocent 14-year-old girls killed by drone strikes. But this is not relevant. I blame the people who deflect the attention from where it should be, and the ones who allow this deflection.

I blame said messiahs like Imran Khan who say that the war against extremism is “not our war”, and I blame the educated elite who allow that mentality to flourish. That belief is a form of indirect sympathy for the Taliban, and direct ignorance towards a mindset that claims the minds of an overwhelming number of Pakistanis. The declaration that this war is not our duty is harmful beyond words. It sheds us from all responsibility of creating a monster on our territory, a monster that is fighting our people. If this is not something that we have the duty to fight, then we are being apathetic towards causes like Malala’s. Malala did not believe that this war is not ours; she fought it single-highhandedly and refused to surrender.

The Taliban have vowed to kill Malala if she survives, and have vowed to kill her father, who is as heroic as she. Our fear, our apathy and our ignorance gave way for an incident we regret. But now, the same fear, the same apathy, and the same ignorance can lead to her death, to her father’s death. We have been given another chance, and I fear it is our last.

People say that the Taliban did this to Malala, but I think that we did. I think our silence causes and continues to cause our future to darken. People say that Malala represents Pakistan and its struggles, but I don’t think she does. I think she is one of the few who struggled for change, that she is one of the few that fought for a voice, that she is one – in one hundred and eighty million.

The negligent Pakistani | DAWN.COM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[SQ8]

The question is, with so many major parties asserting an anti-Malala stance, why is the MQM the only big party to express real support for her? Why hasn't the political divide widened appreciably to present Pakistanis with more clear-cut alternatives?

Its the only party that outright questions the Mullah's and has no fear of being branded apostates by them for fear of losing support.
The rest find the haggard Mullah's good allies at election time.

 

[sur]

The question is, with so many major parties asserting an anti-Malala stance, why is the MQM the only big party to express real support for her? Why hasn't the political divide widened appreciably to present Pakistanis with more clear-cut alternatives?

You must be on drugs to infer that ...

Not a single party expressed ANY anti-Malala stance.

 

[Solomon2]

You must be on drugs to infer that ...Not a single party expressed ANY anti-Malala stance.

They may condemn what happened to her but who (1) condemned her attackers for being what they are and (2) their despotic goals and (3) demanded that military and society combat and defeat them? Without all three politicians can squirm out of an active response - that is, they are being spineless.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

First Taliban and then , the drones , shot down 10-20 drones and soon US will send in delegation to apologize and talk

 

[TalibanSwatter]

Talat Husain

The expected military operation in North Waziristan has been put on hold yet again. Ironically, this has happened in part because of the very event that was supposed to spur the nation and the government into taking decisive action against the last bastion of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan i.e., the attack on Malala Yousufzai. Just last week, the outpouring of national outrage against this heinous assault seemed to bring all stakeholders on the page of cleansing the cities and towns of North Waziristan of the stranglehold of the militants. Now, this has changed. That consensus seems to have been lost in the haystack of heated controversies and cold calculations of the leaderships of various political parties. The national debate is now divided and fragmented and public opinion is confused. Going purely by opinion trends on social media and the conduct of national leadership, the stomach for taking the battle to the Taliban of Waziristan has become squeamish. The counter-narrative of the religious right, and also of those spearheading protests against the blasphemous video, clearly has had an effect. In popular perception, the Malala incident is no longer an open and shut case of the Taliban attempting to silence an ardent spokesperson for female education and a budding activist for her liberal values. The insinuation doing the rounds borders closely on the conspiracy theory that this could well have been staged to either distract media attention from the derogatory video or the growing voices against drone strikes. Another oft-heard assertion is that perhaps, the entire incident was meant to create momentum to launch an operation on North Waziristan.

These are wild theories and have no empirical basis. Some of them are plainly outrageous. But then that hardly matters. What matters is that these have blunted, what a few days ago, looked like a fairly straightforward and pointed demand: the Taliban have started to attack schoolgirls for speaking and writing about education, so the state should say enough is enough and tackle them decisively. What also matters is that these theories have put both the state and the government on the back foot, forcing them to reconsider their options and scale back their enthusiasm for going after the hub of such attacks. The PPP, whose president and prime minister, mouthed valiant bluster when Malala was attacked, have gone completely quiet leaving the field open to the ramblings of Rehman Malik. The PML-N, while continuing to position itself against the stance of the PTI does not want to push the demand of the North Waziristan operation too hard. Its support to the operation is “conditional”, which essentially means that its leaders would gingerly and even haltingly follow rather than lead the march on this score. Imran Khan’s party continues to weigh against another military operation, hammering the point that use of force is not an option anymore and can only lead to more violence. The PTI leadership’s peace plea, however, remains skeletal and without any meaningful details about its implementation. This leaves the ANP as the sole pitcher for the North Waziristan operation. However, it would not surprise anyone if it, too, begins to tone down its stance: the cost of speaking against the militants is paid not in sweat but only in blood.

Interestingly, the army’s interest in the North Waziristan operation, too, has ebbed and flowed in tune with the political mood and public opinion trends. The generals make the argument that a fractured political scene and divided public opinion makes any battle-plan impractical. The same argument is couched in the statement that the political leadership has to give a go-ahead for the operation to start. However, like everything else in Pakistan, this issue, too, is not as simple as it is made out to be. The army high command has been in two minds about North Waziristan for three years. In the wake of, nay almost parallel, to South Waziristan’s Rah-e-Nijat Operation, there was this should-we or should-we-not circular reasoning about the fate of North Waziristan.

So, the confusion is quite chronic and it showed again after the Malala incident in all its ugliness. Immediately after the attack, the army took charge of all developments concerning Malala. Inter-Services Public Relations started to run a health bulletin on the injured child. The army chief’s visit to her produced an incredible press release that had this sentence in capital letters: “We refuse to bow before terror. We fill fight, regardless of the cost, we will prevail Inshallah.” This almost suggested as if commandos were about to rope down in terror-infested compounds of North Waziristan. There was much hype and plenty of meetings. Now, however, this leaping fire of rage has calmed down to a sputtering flame. The health bulletin has stopped. Malala is recuperating in London. Tolerance for audacious attacks on police checkposts and IED blasts have returned. The army brass has gone back to the familiar drawing board, thinking yet again, ‘What to do about North Waziristan? Should we or should we not?’ It is stalemate all over again.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

Ayaz Amir

So Malala deserved to die. “We targeted her because she would speak against the Taliban while sitting with shameless strangers and idealised the biggest enemy of Islam, Barack Obama.” Thus the warriors of the faith, trying to justify the unjustifiable. What was the bigger crime, sitting with shameless strangers or idealising Obama?

Wonders will never cease. The Taliban stung by criticism? This is something new. Inured to drone attacks and military action – things which they could fathom and in a way deal with – but grinding their teeth in helpless anger at this disaster of their own making, and not knowing how to get back at the growing body of criticism created by their action. So words have the power to hurt?

But the Taliban retain the power to shock, first by the attack on the young girl and then by delivering, in the manner of religious injunctions, mind-blowing justifications. The attempted murder of a young girl justified in such terms? And there are people in our society, no shortage of them, with whom such reasoning resonates...if such warped thoughts can be given the name of reasoning.

“Shariah says that even a child can be killed if it is propagating against Islam”...this again from the Taliban. Which Shariah and whose Islam? Forget so-called religious leaders. No point in exposing their contradictions. Come hail or sunshine expect them not to deviate from their chosen script, their path to bread and butter in this world and to heaven in the next. But what about other bright souls, no shortage of them either, who hold it as a self-evident truth that we should negotiate with the Taliban? Imran Khan would not be able to survive a day under the Taliban but it is fascinating watching him as he gets worked up about engaging with the Taliban.

Malala’s ordeal has helped concentrate minds like nothing else. But to prove once more that we live in an imperfect world, it has also exposed our mixed up thinking...not so much the thinking of common people, less given to fanciful flights of logic, as of religious firebrands and political redeemers. Hand it to them for confusing the issue the moment they open their mouths, bringing in the United States, Afghanistan and jihad even as they denounce the attempt on the girl’s life.

And whoever has seen fit to drag the possibility of a military operation in North Waziristan into the ongoing debate and outcry has done little to clear the mist. An operation there is for the army to decide, not the political government which has little say or even interest in the matter. And it should be decided or not decided on its merits, after cool calculation. An army is not worth much if it is pitch-forked into action by emotional pressure, whether coming from outside or generated inwardly by something like Malala’s shooting.


But having said this, isn’t it high time we cleared the cobwebs from our minds and realised that regardless of whether the Americans are in Afghanistan or are getting out in a year or two, the mindset of the Taliban, their narrow interpretation of Islam, is a threat to us all...that what they stand for, the ideas they propagate, and for which they are not above targeting a 14-year-old school girl, are antithetical to the very idea of Pakistan as articulated by its founding fathers. Iqbal or Al-Qaeda, Jinnah or the Taliban...is it possible even to think on these lines?

If an operation in North Waziristan is a matter of tactics and timing, of weighing the pros and cons, getting our thinking straight, realising the enormity of the danger we face, is something far bigger. Are we ready for this? Is this republic to remain a monument to confused and divisive policies or are we finally prepared to live like a normal country?

Normality means the army high command reaffirming its loyalty to the ideas of Jinnah, begging forgiveness for the aberrations of the Zia and subsequent years. It means abandoning the false notions of strategic depth and throwing all the weight of our not inconsiderable energies on domestic problems. Setting our house in order, developing a sound economy and maintaining a valid defence...these should be our priorities. And settling the problems of Balochistan – we must take these seriously – and seeing to it that we have nothing to do with the politics of jihad, whether dedicated to the liberation of Kashmir or the winning of influence in Afghanistan.

Pakistan’s strategic depth lies not in Afghanistan. Whoever gave us this idea? The generals responsible for this philosophy deserve an extended stay in purgatory. Our strategic depth is Balochistan. Take that away and what remains of Pakistan? Just an over-populated corridor running from north to south. Our so-called strategic location is because of that province.

The choice is clear and should leave no room for confusion. Talking to the Baloch, yes, by all means...even if they have begun talking the language of independence. Talking to the Taliban, no, because the mediaeval kingdom they believe in has nothing to do with Pakistan. Let them conquer Afghanistan. Let them conquer Chechnya. We should be rid of the false ideas we have been nurturing these past 30 years if not more. Pakistan should not be any kind of safe haven for them. And then let America fight its own wars. And good luck to it.

But let us not be under the illusion that our internal cancer, that of religious extremism and the nationwide network sustaining it, is dependent on or connected to America’s presence in Afghanistan. America may leave tomorrow yet this cancer will remain. We will still have to figure out how to fight it. The fight can be postponed, not abandoned if Pakistan is to be rescued.

But no reason to despair. Better-organised societies have been beset by confusion at different times in their history. Recall the divided psyche of France on the eve of the Second World War. The Wehrmacht came as conquering heroes later. Defeat lay in the mind of France before the onset of hostilities. As for Britain, in the long run-up to the war opinion there was divided about the best course to adopt towards Hitler. There were those who advocated a policy of engagement, eventually turning into the bitter leaves of appeasement. Munich exposed the hollowness of their thinking. Churchill’s was the lone voice from early on which said that there could be no talking to Hitler because Hitler’s goals were not amenable to negotiations.

Hitler revealed himself in Mein Kampf, much before he came to power. How many more self-confessions from the Taliban before a divided and confused nation can finally agree that they and their goals stand fully revealed and that there is no halfway house with them?

It won’t hurt us if at this juncture we also started thinking about the larger problem besetting us. Isn’t it time we rethought the idea of Pakistan? The two-nation theory was good enough, indeed essential, for separate statehood. But haven’t events overtaken it? Proclaiming our Muslimhood is no answer to the problems of Balochistan. It helps us achieve little clarity about the threat posed by the Taliban. So what is the answer?

History itself is throwing up the alternative, the need to recast the idea of Pakistan on what I can only call ‘modern’ lines, shying away as I do, for obvious reasons, from the word secular, turned into a red rag by the ideologues standing guard over the flickering flame called the ideology of Pakistan.

 

[S_O_C_O_M]

Pakistan Police Name Suspect in Malala Yousafzai Shooting - The Daily Beast

 

[Zarvan]

Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- The Pakistani Taliban sought to silence the teenage education activist Malala Yousufzai by shooting her in the head. They're also trying to stifle the widespread criticism of the attack in the news media by threatening journalists in Pakistan.
The militant group's menacing statements have intensified fears among reporters in a country that is already one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a journalist.
The attack on Malala, 14, in the northwestern district of Swat last week has left her battling to recover from her injuries in a hospital in Britain and generated a wave of shock and anger in Pakistan and around the world.
Girl shot alongside Malala haunted by the attack
The Taliban quickly claimed responsibility for the act, but they didn't appear to have anticipated the level of revulsion and condemnation that it would provoke. Thousands of people joined in rallies across Pakistan in support of the wounded teen, and calls grew for a strong response from the government.
Malala's friend: No regrets Malala shooting: An eye opener? The history of the Pakistani Taliban
As coverage of the shooting -- and the appalled reaction to it -- swept across the Pakistani and international news media, the Taliban began issuing lengthy statements trying to justify the targeting of Malala, who had defied them by insisting on the right of girls to go to school.
They also complained that "this ******, godless media has taken huge advantage of this situation, and journalists have started passing judgment on us," raising the prospect of killing those journalists.
Who are the Pakistani Taliban?
Reporters in northwestern Pakistan, the region where the Taliban are active, say they have been alerted by authorities of an increased risk to their security and some of them have received warnings that they are being specifically targeted.
"Things after Malala have become more tense, as the Taliban is very angry with the way the attack was reported," said a veteran journalist in Peshawar, the main city in the restive northwestern region near the border with Afghanistan. "We are scared, but what can we do? We have to work."
The journalist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of fear of reprisals, noted that factions of the Taliban had killed and abducted other journalists in the past because they were unhappy with their coverage.
Tanvir Ahmed Tahir, the executive director of the All Pakistan Newspapers Society, a trade body of publishers, said the organization had requested extra security from the government to protect its members' operations and staff in light of the Taliban statements.
The militants' threats against journalists for covering an attack for which they had unabashedly claimed responsibility may seem contradictory. But it goes to the heart of the Taliban's approach, according to Mustafa Qadri, Pakistan researcher for the human rights group Amnesty International.
Attack on Pakistani schoolgirl galvanises anti-Taliban feeling
"The underlying thing to understand is the Taliban only have one modus operandi: violence," said Qadri, who is based in Britain but travels to Pakistan regularly. "They use it to intimidate people and coerce them into doing what they want."
He said that some of the local journalists he had spoken to in northwestern Pakistan -- including in Mingora, the main town in the Swat Valley where Malala's family lives -- were "very shaken" by the Taliban threats and had asked him to pray for them.
Gordon Brown: Malala attack 'unspeakable' Pakistanis outraged by Taliban attack $1 million bounty for Malala attackers
"These people have families and children," he said. "Part of their job is going out into the field -- they don't have luxury of leaving the country" like foreign journalists.
Despite the risks, the Malala story is still "actively being taken up by the press" and journalists are "doing their duty," Tahir of the newspaper society said.
That role is all the more significant in a part of the world caught amid various geopolitical riptides.
The volatile area southwest of Peshawar, along the porous border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, is a base for extremist groups, the focus of the controversial U.S. drone strike program and the scene of clashes between Pakistani security forces and militants.
Malala: A global symbol but still just a kid
Much of it has become a no-go area for reporters, especially those from Western news organizations, but some local journalists still venture into risky areas.
"If we don't have these people doing this job, we won't know what's happening," said Qadri. "When conflicts are fought away from the media lens, that increases the scope for abuses."
The dangers that journalists already face in Pakistan are well documented.
More journalists were killed there than in any other country in both 2010 and 2011, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), a group based in New York that promotes press freedom around the world.
"Many of those who died in targeted killings had first been warned to be silent," the group said in a blog post on its website.
Threats can come not just from militants, but also from government agencies, the CPJ said.
"It's really tough being a journalist in Pakistan, especially on the front line where they are under constant pressure from the Taliban, the state and even political parties," said Qadri, who worked as a reporter in the country for four years. "It's a very politicized environment."

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/19/world/asia/pakistan-taliban-media-threat/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

 

[Leader]

Update:


Malala tried to move today, stood up with help and tried to write and respond to instructions,

now she is out of unconscious !!


Alhamdulillah !!


any further updates

Malala Yousafzai status updates