View Full Version : Benazir Bhutto Assassinated
CountArach
12-27-2007, 22:50
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/28/2128035.htm
Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a gun and bomb attack after a rally in the city of Rawalpindi, her party said.
"She has been martyred," party official Rehman Malik said.
Ms Bhutto, 54, died in hospital in Rawalpindi. Ary-One Television said she had been shot in the head.
Police said a suicide bomber fired shots at Ms Bhutto as she was leaving the rally venue in a park before blowing himself up.
"The man first fired at Bhutto's vehicle. She ducked and then he blew himself up," police officer Mohammad Shahid said.
Police said 16 people had been killed in the blast. Earlier, party officials said Ms Bhutto was safe.
A Reuters witness said he saw about eight bodies on a road.
An Interior Ministry spokesman said initial reports suggested it was a suicide bombing and more than 10 people had been killed.
A suicide bomber killed nearly 150 people in an attack on Ms Bhutto on October 18 as she paraded through the southern city of Karachi after returning home from eight years in self-imposed exile.
Earlier, gunmen opened fire on supporters of another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, from an office of the party that supports President Pervez Musharraf, killing four Sharif supporters, police said.
Mr Sharif was several kilometres away from the shooting and was on his way to Rawalpindi after attending a rally.
Mr Sharif, who was overthrown by Mr Musharraf in a 1999 coup and allowed back into the country just last month after seven years in exile, blamed supporters of the pro-Musharraf party for the violence.
But a spokesman for the party denied that its workers were involved.
The shooting occurred near an office of the pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (Q).
"Somebody from inside the election office opened fire," senior police official Shahid Nadeem Baloch said.
"But I can't say they were Q [pro-Musharraf party] people. It's an election office and lots of people sit there during election time."
The United States has condemned the bombing attack in Pakistan that reportedly claimed the life of Ms Bhutto.
Deputy State Department spokesman Tom Casey could not confirm that Ms Bhutto had been killed in the bombing.
"We obviously condemn the attack that shows that there are people out there who are trying to disrupt the building of democracy in Pakistan," he said.
Another step towards an even worse Dictatorship...
Marshal Murat
12-27-2007, 22:54
I think this is a turning point for a brighter future. With the popular support, and the correct turn of phrase, a couple show trials and all, Musharraf can destroy Taliban forces in the North-West province, unite the country, and bring peace to his country.
discovery1
12-27-2007, 23:10
Yeah, as strange as this may seem, this seems like it may actually be enough to rally the Pakistani public against extremists. I hope....
Myrddraal
12-27-2007, 23:58
Even when the extreemists are government supporters?
I'm not so sure.
Marshal Murat
12-28-2007, 00:11
Then the government needs to be handed over to more peaceful and responsible people.
CountArach
12-28-2007, 00:22
Then the government needs to be handed over to more peaceful and responsible people.
You do realise that their only real chance of that was just killed, don't you? There is now no chance of a Democracy and hence no chance of unity amongst the Pakistanis. Bhutto, in my mind, was the only person who could have led them away from the path they are now taking and hence the only one who could unite them against Muslim Fanaticism.
Marshal Murat
12-28-2007, 00:24
Which is why this event is so troubling to many Westerners (and Australians)
Welcome to FRONTLINE: PAKISTAN!
Papewaio
12-28-2007, 00:51
Which is why this event is so troubling to many Westerners (and Australians)
Curious that Australians are not included within the definition of Western. Considering government institutions and history it is no more or less Western then Canada.
Very sad - she was a brave woman and that she follow her father in being killed for political reasons is tragic. I don't know about her track record as a Pakistani politician - I confess I have not followed the politics carefully - but whenever I heard her speak to the international media, she seemed to be humane, intelligent and sensible. Pakistan needs more such people, not less. :shame:
Marshal Murat
12-28-2007, 01:09
Curious that Australians are not included within the definition of Western
Well, I didn't want to seem too ignorant. Me being a humble American.
Boyar Son
12-28-2007, 01:12
You do realise that their only real chance of that was just killed, don't you? There is now no chance of a Democracy and hence no chance of unity amongst the Pakistanis. Bhutto, in my mind, was the only person who could have led them away from the path they are now taking and hence the only one who could unite them against Muslim Fanaticism.
If they become (or stay) an islam state...maybe we can befriend them so they dont attack us. Same goes for the rest of the mid-east.
Boyar Son
12-28-2007, 01:25
Not possible mate.
How long, as I have been saying since forever here, will this be allowed to go on?
Form up and arm your weapons.
You cant win I say!!!!
to accomplish this we must exterminate every muslim that supports jihad/1 islamic state/ anti western and anti democracy!!
not possible with the 'rules' of war in todays society not to mention not plausible.
I think you will find them better as friends...
Papewaio
12-28-2007, 01:29
You do realise that their only real chance of that was just killed, don't you? There is now no chance of a Democracy and hence no chance of unity amongst the Pakistanis. Bhutto, in my mind, was the only person who could have led them away from the path they are now taking and hence the only one who could unite them against Muslim Fanaticism.
Democracy is like Invention we name the few who lead, but we tend to forget that many others are capable waiting in the wings. Bhutto dying is not going to kill democracy. Changing leaders by warfare or coups kills democracy. Any individual adult of mediocre talent can become a democratic leader, the beauty of democracy is if they spin too large and perform too little we vote them out and replace them with another mediocre talent. Sometimes we get worse ones, sometimes we get better ones. Democracy doesn't die based on an individual it lives and dies on a mindset that real lasting beneficial change can be made by voting not violence.
If we all just realised that politicians are a modern hydra that grows another head, we wouldn't place such a high value on individual politicians. The irony being that displacing this value would also stop them being valuable targets to be knocked off.
Replying to Boyar
It's not possible for this to go without military reprisal.
You do not have to kill every Muslim because every Muslim has nothing to do with it.
The Pakistan Army has to really, with no UTTER BS, go INTO the BATTLE. There is no longer any excuse, the extremist elements within the military must be removed, the Army must engage the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban on all fronts. There must be decisive military victories if there is to be any hope of peace. There must be a dialogue, but what happened today is a GREAT victory for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. There has to be a military response.
The situation has been out of control for a long time. The developments in Pakistan will have global repurcussions.
What happened today is really a disaster. Pearl harbor dude. BIG screw up.
Boyar Son
12-28-2007, 01:42
Replying to Boyar
It's not possible for this to go without military reprisal. "
It is not possible to befriend an enemy which will not appreciate you unless you are in a position of strength.
You do not have to kill every Muslim because every Muslim has nothing to do with it.
The Pakistan Army has to really, with no UTTER BS, go INTO the BATTLE. There is no longer any excuse, the extremist elements within the military must be removed, the Army must engage the Al-Qaeda and the Taliban on all fronts. There must be decisive military victories if there is to be any hope of peace. There must be a dialogue, but what happened today is a GREAT victory for Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. There has to be a military response.
The extremists elements occupy much of the ranks of the army. There will be mass desertion and pakistan can only recieve so much help from its allies (US).
The taliban does not work as a regular state army. You can only fight them for so long before there withdrawal and you'll need to train your soldiers to be successful in mountain campaigns.
Their leadership is mobile and are aware that spies and assassins might try to infiltrate.
I agree action SHOULD be taken, absulutaly with you there and the show no mercy even if they have a family (yes everyone your determination must be ABSOLUTE and must pass theirs) but we--
___ cannot do what the US did and attack blindly, nor let them use their experience to gain an advantage.
I must learn to post just once, not post and edit and edit and edit...
No I don't think so. The so called elements in the army are not fools, nor are they true fundamentalists. Clever and cunning they are, they know what they are doing. The "elements" are not in the thousands, they are in the hundreds with a handful of top commanders. I very much doubt there will be mass desertion if the army TRULY mobilises to war footing and REALLY (no theatrics, no PR show) engages the enemy. It's very improbable they will desert in masses and droves. The average army troop does not want to kill natives on their own land, this is the major issue. Just send the US military and see what happens. Iraq will be a piece of cake compared to this. The point I'm making is that the army does not see them as invaders, this is the issue. It is an issue of propaganda, it's the responsibility of the army leadership to make sure the soldiers do the job they got hired to do: FIGHT!.
Marshal Murat
12-28-2007, 02:01
With her death, hopefully, will destroy any popular support for the Taliban. The insurgency is only successful if it has local support.
Tribesman
12-28-2007, 02:16
As to the event
SURPRISE
As to Cossacks posts....hmmmmmmmmslightly confuseled are thee...mightily confuseled indeed it appears:yes:
Now then Sinan , I find your posts on this wider topic both slightly enlightened and at the same time very disturbing...I think it is the "slightly" that makes them disturbing .
As to the event
SURPRISE
I'm assuming that's sarcasm.
If it is, I'd have to agree with you. This really doesn't come as surprise to me. It was more a question of when, than really "if".
Tribesman
12-28-2007, 02:56
I'm assuming that's sarcasm.
:2thumbsup:
Come on she was lucky and got away with it the day before , no way she could get away with it in Rawalpindi...read through Sinan posts and work out why .:army:
The question is , will this lead to another civil war in a nuclear armed country that is already fighting several civil wars amd wi;; this on top of the other civil wars in a nuclear armed dictatorship that is already fighting several neighbouring countries escalate into a bigger regional mess .
When the world biggest superpower gets its "favourite" dictator and its "favourite" a;ternative into a tangle and the tangl turns into a tussle what way does it jump when the tussle turns nasty ?
Boyar Son
12-28-2007, 03:07
As to the event
SURPRISE
As to Cossacks posts....hmmmmmmmmslightly confuseled are thee...mightily confuseled indeed it appears:yes:
Now then Sinan , I find your posts on this wider topic both slightly enlightened and at the same time very disturbing...I think it is the "slightly" that makes them disturbing .
Wuh?! how did you know it was ME!?
haha I seriously doubt that you _read_ my post and compared it with the 'enlightened' (no offence sinan)--> "charge and kill for glory"
:laugh4: :laugh4: seriously I thought you'd take my stance hehe what with the "lets think about how we're gonna do this"
But NO!! :laugh4: good one tribesman
CHARGE !!! Dammit !!!
joking!
Slug For A Butt
12-28-2007, 03:45
Hmm, not sure how this one is going to play out.
Undoubtedly Musharraf will be partying tonight behind closed doors, the people of Pakistan will be subjugated in the same way they have been over the last few months while the ahem... election was gearing up.
We are all assuming it's the fault of the only extremists on the sub-continent "Al-Qaeda", but remember that the powers that be had a vested interested in seeing her go too (maybe some sort of agreement would see her gone and the government's hands clean?).
In the meantime Musharraf will wring his hands in public, pay lip service to hunting terrorists and continue to be a puppet of the U.S. as long as the dollars keep rolling in.
Some useful background (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/paul_cruickshank/2007/12/plan_b_for_pakistan.html):
Bin Laden has plotted against Bhutto since she first became prime minister of Pakistan. In the fall of 1989, in the lead up to a crunch no-confidence vote in Pakistan's parliament, Bin Laden, based then in Peshawar, tried to sway the outcome by sending money to Islamabad to buy votes. According to testimony in Peter Bergen's 2006 oral history The Osama bin Laden I know, Bhutto, on discovering Bin Laden's involvement, personally phoned up King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and demanded the Saudis rein him in. The Saudis called Bin Laden back for consultations and promptly confiscated his passport, cutting him off for a while from the al-Qaida organisation he had founded in Pakistan the year before. The episode presumably did not endear Bhutto to Bin Laden.
Tribesman
12-28-2007, 03:59
We are all assuming it's the fault of the only extremists on the sub-continent "Al-Qaeda",
Who is ?
there are so many factions in Pakistan .. .
The list of possible suspect organisations woud probably fill the word/post allowance .
Vladimir
12-28-2007, 04:00
You cant win I say!!!!
to accomplish this we must exterminate every muslim that supports jihad/1 islamic state/ anti western and anti democracy!!
not possible with the 'rules' of war in todays society not to mention not plausible.
I think you will find them better as friends...
:laugh4: It's not possible with the number of bullets in today's society. Guess what will happen when our "Muslim extermination reeducation campaign" is launched.
Do we have any word on who's responsible? I think Lemur is the only one to provide insight on that.
Slug For A Butt
12-28-2007, 04:17
Who is ?
there are so many factions in Pakistan .. .
The list of possible suspect organisations woud probably fill the word/post allowance .
You missed the sarcasm mate.
That was my point exactly.
Undoubtedly Musharraf will be partying tonight behind closed doors, the people of Pakistan will be subjugated in the same way they have been over the last few months while the ahem... election was gearing up.
I am not sure. There were stories about Bhutto and Musharraf potentially working out some kind of deal via the elections (e.g. her as PM, he as President) that would have led to a transition to democracy. Whether either side would have played ball and it could have worked, I don't know but it seemed a plausible way out of the current impasse. As it is, Musharraf looks very vulnerable and without much of a powerbase. I doubt he will be partying - especially as some of Bhutto's supporters are likely to blame him for failing to protect their leader or worse.
Slug For A Butt
12-28-2007, 04:30
I am not sure. There were stories about Bhutto and Musharraf potentially working out some kind of deal via the elections (e.g. her as PM, he as President) that would have led to a transition to democracy. Whether either side would have played ball and it could have worked, I don't know but it seemed a plausible way out of the current impasse. As it is, Musharraf looks very vulnerable and without much of a powerbase. I doubt he will be partying - especially as some of Bhutto's supporters are likely to blame him for failing to protect their leader or worse.
Sorry Econ, you ain't going to convince me that Sharif banned and Bhutto dead doesn't make a merry Christmas for Musharraf. Unfortunately for him some will blame him for not protecting her (wonder why they didn't, hmm...), but they will change their minds after a few well aimed baton blows.
Tribesman
12-28-2007, 05:08
You missed the sarcasm mate.
Perhaps you need to practice more , since....We are all assuming it's the fault of the only extremists on the sub-continent "Al-Qaeda" .....certainly missed the score on the sarcatic rating .
Pannonian
12-28-2007, 06:08
I'm assuming that's sarcasm.
If it is, I'd have to agree with you. This really doesn't come as surprise to me. It was more a question of when, than really "if".
I expected her to at least reach office first before being killed, but her assassination was only a matter of time. Pakistan is not a safe place to be for hjgh profile and would-be populist figures.
CountArach
12-28-2007, 08:57
Al-Qaeda claims responsibility:
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1710322437
Banquo's Ghost
12-28-2007, 11:49
"I know that there is a school of thought which claims that extremism can better be confronted by a military-backed regime. As such, some see a controlled dictatorship as a stable and reliable ally, rather than a truly elected government that has the support of the people.
"It will not surprise you to know that I disagree with this view quite vigorously. I think it is a strategic miscalculation that can have a dysfunctional impact in the battle against violent fanaticism, bigotry and hate which today pose the most serious threat to Pakistan's internal security."
Benazir Bhutto, October 2007
:bow: RIP
Adrian II
12-28-2007, 12:36
"I know that there is a school of thought which claims that extremism can better be confronted by a military-backed regime. As such, some see a controlled dictatorship as a stable and reliable ally, rather than a truly elected government that has the support of the people.
"It will not surprise you to know that I disagree with this view quite vigorously. I think it is a strategic miscalculation that can have a dysfunctional impact in the battle against violent fanaticism, bigotry and hate which today pose the most serious threat to Pakistan's internal security."
Benazir Bhutto, October 2007
:bow: RIP :bow:
KukriKhan
12-28-2007, 14:18
:bow:
Most of the coverage here is about the implications her death has/might have for the US. I wonder about her nuke-armed neighbor (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/States_told_to_step_up_vigil/articleshow/2656655.cms); by web reports, everything is SOP so far. Good.
Yesterday was a bad day for Pakistan and the world at large. My sincere condolences to her family, and the people of Pakistan.
:bow:
Geoffrey S
12-28-2007, 15:31
Unfortunately I can't say it was much of a surprise; it was more 'when' than 'if'. I'm not convinced she'd have been good as leader of Pakistan, but in no way did she deserve this.
Worrying. I'd be surprised if it was actually Musharraf behind this, and think this is yet another sign of him gradually losing power. Despite his track record as a survivor I wonder how much longer he'll last. A full-scale civil war in a nuclear-armed country isn't a good thing.
Fisherking
12-28-2007, 15:43
Who knows where it is going?
Likely it will get worse before it gets better...
BBC has posted a few views: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7162478.stm
Last night I was stuck in traffic on the streets of Karachi for hours witnessing a stampede as life on the streets became insecure.
I was shocked as I witnessed women running for help, without their shoes, without their headscarves, just running and begging cars to help them and give them a lift to safety.
I felt as if I was living in a civil war. The city was being set on fire. The country had become paralysed.
I think that's a symbol of where Pakistan is going after this assassination. I believe most damage was done by the followers of her party, done in rage, I'm sure. But what has the common man done to deserve this?
We used to feel secure here. Foreign companies were investing in Pakistan, people could go out at night and feel safe. During Musharraf's rule we had an economic boom. After last night, I believe this country is being handed over to militants.
I hate to say it, I might be condemned or killed, but we need to take extreme security measures to curb whatever the militants are doing. I had high hopes for Benazir Bhutto. It was one of her main agendas to control the militants.
Now we have been asked to stay at home for three days. It is literally like a curfew. The main road is empty. I have been trying to trace my patients and some are missing. That makes me wonder what has happened to this country.
The only single reassuring fact is that Pakistan has been through heaven and hell, quite literally, so there is some hope it will survive.
Tribesman
12-28-2007, 16:56
Worrying. I'd be surprised if it was actually Musharraf behind this, and think this is yet another sign of him gradually losing power.
The thing is who is behind Musharraf .
He has his position due to support from several key elements inside and outside the country , not all have the same aims or objectives , indeed some have completely opposing objectives
The only single reassuring fact is that Pakistan has been through heaven and hell, quite literally, so there is some hope it will survive.
Of course it will survive, the only surprising thing about this assination is the reaction of surprise by the media/population.
She was off the plane for what? 30minutes and 2 bombs went off designed for her death?
Lets not get to silly with this thing, she was a moderate voice who wanted to uplift those in poverty, fight extremism, and butted heads with the then military dictator of the country.
There were a whole lot of people who wanted this lady dead, and her death while a tradgedy for moderation enables Pakistan to shift back to status quo once the riots have stopped. (which I suspect will be put down after the 3day morning period by the ex general).
I certainly dont wish strive in Pakistan but given that the west drove out the exteme elements of afghanistan into pakistan, coupled with the above mentioned enemies she had this outcome should surprise no one.
Geoffrey S
12-28-2007, 17:36
The thing is who is behind Musharraf .
He has his position due to support from several key elements inside and outside the country , not all have the same aims or objectives , indeed some have completely opposing objectives
Point taken. I think for quite a while he kept a large degree of independence, but recent years have seen him taking diverse positions too often for his backers (public, US, military, religious influences, progressives...) to find it worthwhile to continue supporting him.
Very sad - she was a brave woman and that she follow her father in being killed for political reasons is tragic. I don't know about her track record as a Pakistani politician - I confess I have not followed the politics carefully - but whenever I heard her speak to the international media, she seemed to be humane, intelligent and sensible. Pakistan needs more such people, not less.
Bhutto was, like all politicians, prone to the 'indiscretions' of her career. Numerous accusations and charges of corruption have been leveled at her and her family throughout her career. I believe her husband served several years in prison after being found guilty of corruption. Benazir managed to clear her name (how, I have no idea).
Of course it will survive, the only surprising thing about this assination is the reaction of surprise by the media/population.
She was off the plane for what? 30minutes and 2 bombs went off designed for her death?
Lets not get to silly with this thing, she was a moderate voice who wanted to uplift those in poverty, fight extremism, and butted heads with the then military dictator of the country.
There were a whole lot of people who wanted this lady dead, and her death while a tradgedy for moderation enables Pakistan to shift back to status quo once the riots have stopped. (which I suspect will be put down after the 3day morning period by the ex general).
I certainly dont wish strive in Pakistan but given that the west drove out the exteme elements of afghanistan into pakistan, coupled with the above mentioned enemies she had this outcome should surprise no one.
I completely agree with you... and Tribesman (:dizzy2: ye gods!). Bhutto was living on borrowed time as soon as she returned from exile. Whether she was attempting to rejoin the spotlight and fuel her politician's ego or she honestly wanted to foster true democracy in Pakistan (or a combination of both) she and her security staff clearly miscalculated just how effective these attempts would be on her life.
However I will say there just may be a silver lining to this latest chapter in Islamic fundamentalism. Look at what has happened in Iraq and what is now happening in Pakistan... sheer, unadulterated hatred for all things Al Qaeda is bubbling to the surface from people who previously sat on the fence and did nothing, some of whom may have actually sympathized with Al Qaeda and its anti-western ravings.
The rabid and unrelenting nature of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and similar organizations are showing the Muslim world that these are dogs that cannot be controlled or tamed.
Slug For A Butt
12-28-2007, 18:25
I'm personally not convinced that Al-Qaeda is the cancer. More a symptom of the cancer.
Look at India and Pakistan (forget Bangladesh as I would sound too biased if I went into that), the same people divided by only one thing, religion. Genetically and geographically the same people with religion being their only difference. How different these two states are.
Al-Qaeda claims responsibility:
Al-Qaeda would claim responsibility for G.W.Bush dying of a brain tumour, doesn't mean they had anything to do with it. Just means they want to be credited with it.
I'm personally not convinced that Al-Qaeda is the cancer. More a symptom of the cancer.
Look at India and Pakistan (forget Bangladesh as I would sound too biased if I went into that), the same people divided by only one thing, religion. Genetically and geographically the same people with religion being their only difference. How different these two states are.
Rather then read into and assume what you mean I'll just ask. Do you mean to say that the cancer would be Islam?
Boyar Son
12-28-2007, 18:42
"I know that there is a school of thought which claims that extremism can better be confronted by a military-backed regime. As such, some see a controlled dictatorship as a stable and reliable ally, rather than a truly elected government that has the support of the people.
"It will not surprise you to know that I disagree with this view quite vigorously. I think it is a strategic miscalculation that can have a dysfunctional impact in the battle against violent fanaticism, bigotry and hate which today pose the most serious threat to Pakistan's internal security."
Benazir Bhutto, October 2007
:bow: RIP
ARGhhh...You tried it your way and now look where you ended up. She says objections BUT NO pluasible plan of action.
Slug For A Butt
12-28-2007, 19:41
Rather then read into and assume what you mean I'll just ask. Do you mean to say that the cancer would be Islam?
Thank you for being direct. I will be the same. Yes, a religion that advocates violence , intolerance, paedophilia, stealing, murder, bandit behaviour, child murder etc. has surely failed to evolve over it's 1400 year lifespan. The Talmud used to advocate intolerence to nonbelievers but Judaism has grown up and evolved. The same can be said of most religions, but Islam is still rooted in 1400 year old politics that are alienated from the rest of the world. Probably the reason that Islam is at war with every other world religion somewhere on the globe purely because they are non Islamic. I personally think it about time that Islam grew up that's all.
So, yes. I think that a religion that governs your whole life with a 1400 year old ethic is probably the cancer.
I'm sorry if I offend any Muslims with this. But it's about time people stopped worrying about offending Muslims at the expense of being offended themselves.
Thank you for being direct. I will be the same. Yes, a religion that advocates violence , intolerance, paedophilia, stealing, murder, bandit behaviour, child murder etc. has surely failed to evolve over it's 1400 year lifespan. The Talmud used to advocate intolerence to nonbelievers but Judaism has grown up and evolved. The same can be said of most religions, but Islam is still rooted in 1400 year old politics that are alienated from the rest of the world. Probably the reason that Islam is at war with every other world religion somewhere on the globe purely because they are non Islamic. I personally think it about time that Islam grew up that's all.
So, yes. I think that a religion that governs your whole life with a 1400 year old ethic is probably the cancer.
I'm sorry if I offend any Muslims with this. But it's about time people stopped worrying about offending Muslims at the expense of being offended themselves.
while I agree conceptually (that religion doctrine that governs lives is corrupting) I think its too broad a brush to use when painting the picture of the cause here.
I wont go on and on about Islam, but calling it the Cancer and assigning the title of "cause" in the case of Bhutto is a stretch. That said, I wont deny that there are those who interpret Islam in a way that makes them a cancer. Religion, as proved out in history is just a means to an end.
Vladimir
12-28-2007, 19:53
You'll find that culture affects a religion more than a religion affects a people. There are too many Muslims that either reject or ignore the old school dogma you are referring to.
FactionHeir
12-28-2007, 20:02
CNN is now saying that she died by hitting her head against a lever of the sunroof of the car she was travelling in. Supposedly that gave her a skull fracture that was fatal enough to kill her within a few minutes.
I'm not sure what to make of it, but someone posting in the comments section there said that for a fatal skull fracture to occur as a result of hitting her head against that lever, it would need to be a force of approx 500-700 lbs per square inch or something.
Thoughts?
CNN is now saying that she died by hitting her head against a lever of the sunroof of the car she was travelling in. Supposedly that gave her a skull fracture that was fatal enough to kill her within a few minutes.
I'm not sure what to make of it, but someone posting in the comments section there said that for a fatal skull fracture to occur as a result of hitting her head against that lever, it would need to be a force of approx 500-700 lbs per square inch or something.
Thoughts?
Is that the official cause of death listed? I mean do they do autopsies there?
I find it odd that after a couple of gun shots aimed at her, a bomb going off right next to her that what killed her would be the equivelent of a bump on the head. :rolleyes:
Dosent sound right to me, but why the hell not?
FactionHeir
12-28-2007, 20:11
Didn't say anywhere that an autospy was done, but that might be a bit late now that she's been buried. Could cause quite an uproar to unearth her right after her burial given the volatile situation there.
Still, this particular cause of death was given by the interior ministry. The question is whether that is what they think of whether this is what the doctors that had seen her corpse had told them.
In a way you do start wondering when they keep changing how she died around. Not meaning to be offensive or anything, but what's next? She reappears shortly before elections there saying it was all set up so she was better protected?
Vladimir
12-28-2007, 20:12
I'm thinking the gunshots to the chest and head played a role.
BTW that guy was an excellent shot with a pistol. It makes me wonder where he trained.
Slug For A Butt
12-28-2007, 20:13
CNN is now saying that she died by hitting her head against a lever of the sunroof of the car she was travelling in. Supposedly that gave her a skull fracture that was fatal enough to kill her within a few minutes.
I'm not sure what to make of it, but someone posting in the comments section there said that for a fatal skull fracture to occur as a result of hitting her head against that lever, it would need to be a force of approx 500-700 lbs per square inch or something.
Thoughts?
Stinks of the Bush-Mush PR factory. Did the sunroof kill the sniper that blew himself up afterwards too?
FactionHeir
12-28-2007, 20:18
I'm thinking the gunshots to the chest and head played a role.
BTW that guy was an excellent shot with a pistol. It makes me wonder where he trained.
Where did you read that at? None of the sources I have read mentioned anything now about her actually being hit by the gunshots.
Slug For A Butt
12-28-2007, 20:23
You live in the UK and don't watch BBC NEWS? They were saying she was hit in the neck.
Vladimir
12-28-2007, 20:34
You live in the UK and don't watch BBC NEWS? They were saying she was hit in the neck.
Easy there fella. Yea the news reports said the caught one in the chest and one in the head. I'm not sure if it was a double-tap but it looks like it could have been. Pretty professional; I'm just not sure how many shots were fired.
Hmm, I wonder if CNN would say that Diana died the same way. Maybe it was the poor broad's fault. Anyway, CNN is great for half the story.
FactionHeir
12-28-2007, 20:35
As a student, I do not wish to pay for the overly expensive TV licence in the UK.
Reading the news off several websites is better than watching them off one anyway (in general) :yes:
[edit]
Ah I see. I'll try to find a stream of that somewhere.
Tribesman
12-28-2007, 20:50
Thank you for being direct. I will be the same. Yes, a religion that advocates violence , intolerance, paedophilia, stealing, murder, bandit behaviour, child murder etc. has surely failed to evolve over it's 1400 year lifespan. The Talmud used to advocate intolerence to nonbelievers but Judaism has grown up and evolved. The same can be said of most religions, but Islam is still rooted in 1400 year old politics that are alienated from the rest of the world.
Sorry Slug but your arguement falls apart very easily , not only does it ignore the many changes and branches that have evolved in Islam over the past 1400 years and still are .
Since you mention the Talmud it ignores the direction that some of the evolution in Judaism as well , since there have been movements back to earlier interpretations of that , its called fundamentalism :yes:
You know fundamentalism don't you , its fundamentalist Islam that you are talking about isn't it , the funny thing is Christianity also has fundamentalists doesn't it , does that mean Christianity hasn't really evolved and has failed over 2000 years by being rooted in the past , or can it go further and include fundamentalist Christians who believe the Talmud is dominant and therefore havn't evolved since a wet tuesday at around lunch time 5000 years ago .
Adrian II
12-28-2007, 21:14
You know fundamentalism don't you , its fundamentalist Islam that you are talking about isn't it Certainly, whenever we are talking of Pakistan we are always and necessarily talking of fundamentalism.
In Urdu Pakistan means 'Land of the Pure' - the religiously 'pure' that is. It was founded in the interest of a hard-drinking, hard-smoking, fast-driving womanizer called Mohammed Ali Jinnah, who couldn't stand the idea of taking second place in the newly independent India behind Jawaharlal Nehru and the other Hindu boys. The British concurred with this idea for various reasons, all very cunning and practical, no doubt, and proceeded by eagerly drawing Allah's boundaries for Him...
That is why Pakistan always was, and still is, governed in the name of Allah, not in the name of its people. That is its fundamental weakness as a nation. Just read the Preamble to the Pakistani Constitution:
Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust;
Vladimir
12-28-2007, 22:03
Now all THREE bullets missed her and the shockwave from the blast caused her to hit her head and die.
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2007/12/28/4742858-ap.html
I have no idea what CNews is.
FactionHeir
12-28-2007, 22:03
Isn't that what I posted earlier?
CountArach
12-29-2007, 02:10
According to this (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=340863) it was the "Pakistan interior ministry" who is claiming that she hit her head and died. I would hardly call them a reliable source.
I was going to reply to the comments about Religious Fundamentalism, but it seem that Tribesman beat me to it, so I shall simply say that I agree with his points.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-29-2007, 03:28
The specific cause of her death is rather immaterial.
Whether she was shot, killed outright by blast effect, had her head slammed against a sharp object by the force of the blast, or hit her head ducking it back into the car to avoid the assassin's shots, she was still killed in the assassination.
PanzerJaeger
12-29-2007, 05:44
This is yet another example of muslim politics.
In the islamic world, its not the politician with the best ideas or the most popularity that wins, its the candidate that survives the other candidate's assassins, kills his opponents first, or manages to suppress his rivals in a violent military coup. Is it really about to be 2008 in Pakistan? :dizzy2:
Poor woman must have spent too long in the civilized world and forgotten where the ____ she was going. :no:
God forgive me cause I really abhore ignorance.
Many Muslims are never gonna accept having secular humanism and all the evils it brings with it (the ones that are present in so-called "civilized society") shoved down their throats. That is not compatible with the Koran. That will always be the case in Muslim nations and nations with sizable amounts of Muslims who actually believe in the content of the Koran. I do not believe they can be put down. Secular humanists cannot kill an idea or the convictions of the Muslims' hearts, even if they kill a lot of their lives that believe in that idea. It's not just "Al Qaeda" and "Taliban" that believes in the content of the Koran, as secular humanists like to allege to be the case. The success by Bhutto's assassin(s) is evidence of that, even if members of those groups did it.
Bhutto's death doesn't surprise me. She knew it was likely to happen but she pretty much arrogantly flaunted her secular humanist agenda in everyone's face in a condenscending, dictatorial-ish way as if it must be imposed on Muslim societies against their will. I once saw her quoted in the press as saying "That's Un-Islamic!" in regards to some people that were actually applying Islamic morality & law in a completely proper way. She surely knew very well that in actuality it was completely Islamic, but she lied about that anyways because she was trying to twist the definition of Islamic to mean "superficial dressing on a secular humanist agenda" rather than the true, proper definition that she hated so much, which is believing in and abiding by the content of the Koran.
AntiochusIII
12-29-2007, 09:33
No offense, Nav, but there are times when playing the resident fundamentalist character is just plain inappropriate.
...such as this.
The Org's Backroom has a strict policy against celebrating a person's death; whilst you certainly haven't crossed the line, apathy and even mild enthusiasm (distasteful as it may) certainly are allowed around here for news of the fall of famous personalities, I think the sentiment of your post is, well, to put it mildly, not cool.
There were many reasons to distrust Benazir Bhutto, her past records of corruption not withstanding, and one could easily enough condemn the reactions of her supporters upon her death as violent and perhaps counterproductive, but I think I'd reserve even apathy for some people "more deserving." She was at least a leader who wasn't about to destroy Pakistan for some nutjob ideas based on old fictions which just happened to be believed by many men.
It's a tragedy, especially in a situation as Pakistan's, that a moderate voice would fall to extremism in such violent means.
Tribesman
12-29-2007, 11:10
God forgive me cause I really abhore ignorance.
Come on Sinan don't insult the ignorant by aligning them with the twisted .
I once saw her quoted in the press as saying "That's Un-Islamic!" in regards to some people that were actually applying Islamic morality & law in a completely proper way. She surely knew very well that in actuality it was completely Islamic, but she lied about that anyways because she was trying to twist the definition of Islamic to mean "superficial dressing on a secular humanist agenda" rather than the true, proper definition that she hated so much, which is believing in and abiding by the content of the Koran.
Such utter bollox , but then again it is to be expected .
Now can anyone find the numerous quotes where Bhutto said things like this and what she was saying it about (the october one about terrorists killing innocent people is a good one to start ) , since Nav clearly has a strange an understanding of Islam as he has of the bible .
Seamus Fermanagh
12-29-2007, 14:43
Does Nav have a point?
Set aside his preference for fundamentalism and distaste for secularism and I believe he is raising a valid point for discussion.
Are Islamic societies inherently more "fundamentalist" in character than those of the West? If so, does this mean that Western institutions and concepts -- parliamentary democracy, secularized government, "equality" between the sexes in public life -- are facing a basic disconnect?
"Islamic society" is a bit of a monolithic term -- since it is composed of dozens of cultures -- but Nav' is suggesting a coordinating theme/tendency among them.
Food for thought.
Tribesman
12-29-2007, 15:34
Not really much thought needed Seamus , since to make that measure all one has to do is look at comparable non-muslim communities in similar countries/regions and the whole "Its the Muslims" thing falls apart .
Banquo's Ghost
12-29-2007, 16:22
Does Nav have a point?
Set aside his preference for fundamentalism and distaste for secularism and I believe he is raising a valid point for discussion.
Are Islamic societies inherently more "fundamentalist" in character than those of the West? If so, does this mean that Western institutions and concepts -- parliamentary democracy, secularized government, "equality" between the sexes in public life -- are facing a basic disconnect?
"Islamic society" is a bit of a monolithic term -- since it is composed of dozens of cultures -- but Nav' is suggesting a coordinating theme/tendency among them.
Food for thought.
My response would be that fundamentalism, by its nature, cannot have shades of grey. A society cannot be more or less fundamentalist - it is either fundamentalist (by which I, and one supposes, Navaros, mean strictly adherent to the Holy Book of their choice) or relativist.
In my reading of Navaros' posts, I see his own battle with this very problem - religious fundamentalism invariably contains the seeds of its own paradox - most Holy Books contain serious contradictions - which writ then holds for the believer? Where I do find his admiration for Islamic fundamentalism to be odd, is that again by definition, a fundamentalist cannot accept the truth of another's Holy Revelation. If one is a Biblical fundamentalist, one most certainly cannot be a Qu'ranic one, or accept that the latter has any merit - to do so, would be relativist in the acceptance that there may be many guises to the truth.
Precisely why "Islamic society/culture" is as silly a term as "Christian society/culture" when describing anything but extremely broad-brush attributes. It leads us to little understanding and is thus without merit.
A better point for discussion would be the difference between nations that have secular constitutions and those that have religious constitutions - and the level of influence of religious groups and secular movements within each. I read an article recently (I'll try to dig it up) that argued the most important strategy for the free West would be to promote secularism first and foremost, rather than democracy. The latter cannot flourish without religious influence being banished from the constitution. That discussion gets us away from abstract foreign places and right back to our home shores.
(In Pakistan, Mrs Bhutto represented the forces of secularism, but so did President Musharraf - now also fatally compromised as an ally. Religious military rule however, created the present situation, as General Zia ul-Haq was largely responsible for Islamicising the country and its security forces - once again, with our support, as he was considered a lynchpin against the Soviets in Afghanistan - how much has our response against that event cost us thirty years hence?)
Good post, very eloquent.
I'm only using the word you, to connect with the last paragraph in your post. It's not directed to "you". Try to catch the meaning.
No offence or insult intended. :bow:
It has cost you only for the reason that you failed those men who supported you and your Jihad against the Soviets. It has cost because you created the Jihad yourselves, and then abandoned Afghanistan and Pakistan, your allies. People who didn't oppose you but supported you, fought and died for you. There are still Pakistani soldiers fighting and dying for you, for your national security interests, as well as theirs. Your modus operanda has cost you, your treachery has cost you. And it will cost you more, if you abandon Pakistan again, as I'm sure someone in power unwise enough already intends to do.
And it's costing rest of us, who have nothing to do with it, as well.
Now you're in, show some dignity and stick out the duration of the fight.
Banquo's Ghost
12-29-2007, 17:45
It has cost you only for the reason that you failed those men who supported you and your Jihad against the Soviets. It has cost because you created the Jihad yourselves, and then abandoned Afghanistan and Pakistan, your allies. People who didn't oppose you but supported you, fought and died for you. There are still Pakistani soldiers fighting and dying for you, for your national security interests, as well as theirs. Your modus operanda has cost you, your treachery has cost you. And it will cost you more, if you abandon Pakistan again, as I'm sure someone in power unwise enough already intends to do.
And it's costing rest of us, who have nothing to do with it, as well.
Now you're in, show some dignity and stick out the duration of the fight.
I don't disagree with your analysis, though personally I would never have advocated the "jihad" against the Soviets. It was an unnecessary proxy war, as any historian could have argued. The Soviet Union was never going to win that war, and we should have left well alone instead of trying - as we have continued before and after - to influence a part of the world beyond our (the West's) ken.
Still, the roots are far deeper. Pakistan is an artificial country as Adrian II wisely notes. The lines drawn by the imperial power guaranteed failure (as partition was required to do in almost all cases, to prove a point) and subsequent superpower meddling has increased Islamicisation as a counter-point.
The problem for Pakistan is that she has been too often a pawn, and not abandoned to her own fate as you allege. Unfortunately, since the country has a nuclear arsenal and a top-drawer mess of tribal conflicts that include another nuclear power, abandonment is not an option. Along with Saudi Arabia, it is the most dangerous country in the world, and yet we worry ourselves with Iran. ~:rolleyes:
No offence or insult intended. :bow:
None at all taken. :bow:
The only way to heal the wound of partition is reunification.
Pakistan is an artificial country as Adrian II wisely notes. The lines drawn by the imperial power guaranteed failure (as partition was required to do in almost all cases, to prove a point) ...
A small nitpick - lots of countries (most?) are "artificial" in their origins. But that does not guarantee failure. Look at Botswana, South Korea, West Germany, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong before its return to China etc, to pick out the most strikingly successful and ignore the many unremarkable non-failures.
Developing countries have generally accepted the artificial post-colonial boundaries because, although they are artificial, the alternative is opening a Pandora's box of secession or territorial wars. They were probably right to be so conservative, IMO. Artificial countries can develop and thrive. Secession and war are often poison.
I am not sure Pakistan is doomed by its inheritance. Until the late 1980s, India was not doing that much better in economic terms than Pakistan but it now seems to be taking off. Maybe India's example can inspire Pakistan to follow suit? Or does it want to play North Korea to India's South Korea?
Until 1990 or so Pakistan's GDP growth per annum stripped India's. Even into the late 90's the average Pakistani was way better off than an average Indian. A team of South Korean dignitaries visited Pakistan in the late 50s to take an example of successful development.
Now decades later South Korea (yeah I miss you too E), seems centuries ahead. Pakistan does not want to play North Korea, to the contrary, Pakistanis like most people want prosperity and peace. Although after the recent Bhutto murder perhaps some will be more willing to finish the fight before returning home to dinner.
I think BG specifically spoke of ex colonies in his partition analysis.
Feudalism, Imperial influence, rampant corruption of successive "democratic" governments including the Bhuttos and others, ethnic warfare inspired by India's intelligence agency and by successive Army dictatorships, the futile rivalry and utterly stupid wars with India, the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and now the war against the Al-Qaeda and their allies, has drained Pakistan's resources over the decades. India hardly ever had a platefull like Pakistan's. Indian kids never went to school like I did, with jets whizzing overhead on patrol to the Afghan border, with bombs planted by the Soviets & their allies going off all around, every few days. There is no shortage of talent in Pakistan, and it is this talent which has kept the nation afloat till now.
How can a realistic and feasbile comparison be made between Pakistan & India.
It must be very flattering for Pakistanis to hear this comparison. It's like comparing Vietnam with China.
The best possible scenario is a defeat of Al-Qaeda and their allies, a period of economic recovery and preparation (decades) for Pakistan, then a reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It will eventually happen, either with bloodshed or without, but it will happen. One day in the future the wound inflicted on India shall be healed.
HoreTore
12-29-2007, 21:13
Just another corrupt and criminal third world leader getting exactly what she deserved...
Why should I care about this?
CountArach
12-29-2007, 22:21
Just another corrupt and criminal third world leader getting exactly what she deserved...
Why should I care about this?
For one, she is only Opposition Leader. Secondly, Musharraf is so much worse than she is, at least based on previous actions.
Many Muslims are never gonna accept having secular humanism and all the evils it brings with it
I'll get back to this one later.
HoreTore
12-29-2007, 22:32
For one, she is only Opposition Leader. Secondly, Musharraf is so much worse than she is, at least based on previous actions.
She was prime minister twice, both times removed from power due to corruption. Not someone I'm able to love. These corrupt bastards are the ones ruining these countries, I can't say I don't smile when one of them goes down.
Yes, Musharraf may be worse. But that's beside the point, as I'd like to see him with a neck wound too. I won't support the lesser evil, I'd much rather whack both evils. We're talking about a nation of millions here, there's no way they can't find someone who isn't a corrupt bastard to rule. We've done here, with a population of only 4,7 million, of course it's possible in Pakistan.
Oh, and why are people claiming that "muslim extremists" are behind the attack? As far as I can see, Musharraf had the most to gain from her death(keeps power, denies democracy, can get a state of emergency, etc), and as such shouldn't he be the number one suspect?
If he got caught he's dead, too risky, unless he's a damm fool, which he obviously isn't.
Seamus Fermanagh
12-29-2007, 23:14
If he got caught he's dead, too risky, unless he's a damm fool, which he obviously isn't.
I agree. However, it does not obviate him from all potential blame. If he allowed her security to be lax in order to make it easier for a Taliqueda type to take her out, he bears some complicity.
Marshal Murat
12-29-2007, 23:38
Bilawal Bhutto (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1699006,00.html)
I have to say that his expression really defines how many people feel about this.
Saddened, lost, but also ready to go on. Hopefully he can do better things. If an African-American stands the possibility of being elected in America, why not a social liberal in Pakistan?
A team of South Korean dignitaries visited Pakistan in the late 50s to take an example of successful development.
Yes, I heard that anecdote. The raconteur's ironic comment was thank goodess the South Koreans did not listen to the Pakistanis (e.g. on industrial and trade policy).
How can a realistic and feasbile comparison be made between Pakistan & India.
It must be very flattering for Pakistanis to hear this comparison. It's like comparing Vietnam with China.
I am not sure I am getting you here. I think we do compare Vietnam with China. Yes, China is ahead (and is massively bigger, of course) but still Vietnam seems to be following the trail blazed by China.
Indian kids never went to school like I did, with jets whizzing overhead on patrol to the Afghan border, with bombs planted by the Soviets & their allies going off all around, every few days. There is no shortage of talent in Pakistan, and it is this talent which has kept the nation afloat till now.
Well maybe, although parts of Kashmir in India are not exactly ideal kids' playgrounds. Actually, India - like Pakistan - had a pretty poor record on mass education. Lots of kids, especially girls, never went to school full stop. But like Pakistan, it still has a lot of talent - much of it well educated - and this seems to be driving its recent success.
India has also had its share of political dynasties, allegations of corruption, assassinations etc. But it has avoided military rule, instead having a vigorous democracy that I think provides a less destructive way of resolving social conflicts. I'd rather have a corrupt civilian leader than a pure military one. The civilian can be more easily removed if they fail to deliver.
Louis VI the Fat
12-30-2007, 01:54
What a disgrace. What a sad turn of events for Pakistan. I don't really have much to add to everything we've all no doubt read in our papers already. I just feel sorry for the tragedy of this all. Bhutto sounded like a serious, and, despite her faults, most needed, counterweight to the forces of extremism that plague Pakistan. A tragic loss.
:shame:
Tribesman
12-30-2007, 03:35
A tragic loss.
Not so much a tragic loss , rather more of a tragic occurance
HoreTore
12-30-2007, 07:56
If he got caught he's dead, too risky, unless he's a damm fool, which he obviously isn't.
...just like every other pressured national leaders who have whacked political opponents in the past.
And there's NO shortage of those. So I still don't see anything that doesn't make him the prime suspect. But then, in these times all you have to do to get away with anything is to cry "them terrorists did it!!11", and people will buy it time and time again. Look at Iraq, how many people/western idiots still believe that Saddam was behind 9/11 after Bush' pre-war terror campaign?
Leet Eriksson
12-30-2007, 19:49
Was this mentioned? if i recall bhuttos party, rather when her father was head honcho, he was the first to use military force to supress his opponents, its ironic how it ended up like this.
Slug For A Butt
12-31-2007, 04:34
The best possible scenario is a defeat of Al-Qaeda and their allies, a period of economic recovery and preparation (decades) for Pakistan, then a reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. It will eventually happen, either with bloodshed or without, but it will happen. One day in the future the wound inflicted on India shall be healed.
The reunification of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is something that will not happen for the same reason that India gave East Pakistan and West Pakistan in the first place. Religion, the Indians fought for freedom and got it, but then the Muslims didn't want to live with everyone else. What makes you think it is any different now?
Pakistan will never want to live side by side with anyone that is not Muslim, which excludes India and as a side note excludes England, so why the hell are England welcoming Pakistanis with open arms?
It's very different now. You're asking the right person, I was there a few months ago. Most people I've spoken to are much more amiable to an idea of reunification than say even 2 years ago. The movement is defintely on in Pakistan, it may take a few more years before it adopts a public face.
Muslims in Pakistan or anywhere else don't have any issue living with anyone else.
You can't talk about Muslims like they're all the same, they're not. Taliban_qaeda are not a representation of all Muslims.
Tribesman
12-31-2007, 09:45
The movement is defintely on in Pakistan, it may take a few more years before it adopts a public face.
Really ? Then what of all the groups in Pakistan (not to mention India , Kashmir and Bangladesh) that are and have been for a long time wanting their own independance from their respective countries .
They're there as well e.g Jeay Sindh.
Similar note:
India ends alert, restores links on Pakistan border NEW DELHI, Dec 31 (Reuters) - India has ended its high alert for forces along the Pakistan border and restored some transport links, officials said Monday, following disruption in the wake of Benazir Bhutto's assassination. With cities in Pakistan beginning to emerge from several days of unrest, India's border is no longer on “red alert”, a home ministry official said. Meanwhile, the bi-weekly Delhi-Lahore Samjhauta Express train resumed services on Sunday, the railway ministry said. The Thar Express, a weekly service between India's Rajasthan state and Pakistan's Sindh province, will run again on Saturday “if the situation improves”, a ministry official said. (Posted @ 13:10 PST)
I've added another item to my travel list; The Lahore-Delhi Express. What a great train ride that should be. The Thar Express should be very interesting too. Choices... choices, when in doubt take both.
English assassin
12-31-2007, 14:24
I for one was delighted to learn last night that Mrs Bhutto's 19 year old son has been appointed leader of her political party. I feel this is an exciting and vibrant approach to democracy.
Clearly what the world needs right now is a teenager with 95 nuclear warheads. Lets hope he doesn't get turned down at his school disco, or Bombay gets it
BTW does anyone know if the Islamic bomb is atomic or thermonuclear? If atomic I think I will stay where I am, if thermonuclear its time to dust off plans to move to Cornwall.
KukriKhan
12-31-2007, 14:33
Note: Doesn't he (Bhutto's son) currently have a day-job as Oxford student?
Absurd. It's like the middle ages, they've selected a teen heir. How pathetic. May as well call him King. And this is the way to "democracy". Yeah right, this is the way for another billion dollars being robbed from the state treasury. The last billion they already stole in the last two tenures, apparently not enough. Listen to the kid talk, and the BBC is all praise of this guy, I can't believe it.
He won't be in governement just yet, he'll have to win an election first, after he returns with his degree from prestigious Oxford.
While he's there hopefully the English will instruct him on what his limits are.
By the way, Asif Zardari, his father, one of the other two leaders of their party, was banging my ex girlfriend's sister while he was engaged to Benazir, and was seeing Benazir too. Back around 1988 IIRC, she was hot though, very much so. Can't blame him entirely as a man for this failing, but still it was totally wrong of him. I don't remember the exact scene but the other girl was quite a tiger, she put up a fight when she found out he was seeing Benazir as well. If I remember correctly he was leading both women to believe he would marry them, obviously he could only marry one. It was a high profile thing and she left for the USA afterwards since everyone who was anything in society knew she was the one who got dumped. Benazir was richer and had political power. She was a common girl, her father was a normal man in the government, but she was a great girl, spirited, full of heart and soul, of great character, not to mention a body from heaven. The man has no concience, no character.
I wonder what became of her. Might be time to look up that ex after all these years.
The BBC has put up a page with some views on King Bhutto - Zardari
(they changed their name to include the female's family name, votes!):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7165619.stm
I feel this woman puts it very well:
I think it's all quite ridiculous. He's just a kid. I am not politically inclined but I believe we need to sort out the basic problems in this country. This seems to make a mockery of it all.
At the press conference where his succession was declared, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari looked as if he had been told exactly what to say.
He cited his mother saying that "democracy is the best revenge". How can he say that after he has been appointed leader of this party? It's supposed to be the Pakistan People's Party, not the Bhutto party. It's not particularly democratic, is it?
He knows he is inexperienced and so the party has been left in the hands of his father, Asif Zardari - a man accused of all sorts of terrible things. I feel very uneasy about the future. Bilawal is not up to the task. Even if he does take control, he is going to be dictated to by his father and other party members. It is a family affair. I do not trust any of them.
Islamabad used to be a very nice city when I was growing up. We felt secure but now this country is deteriorating day by day. Life is so uncertain now. It is sad that Benazir Bhutto was killed but so many people die every day.
This is the country that 19-year-old has to understand.
Banquo's Ghost
12-31-2007, 16:02
A view from Tariq Ali. (http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3295851.ece) British readers will know him as quite a left-wing commentator, but I think he has some apposite things to say on this "coronation" and its effect on Pakistan.
My heart bleeds for Pakistan. It deserves better than this grotesque feudal charade
By Tariq Ali, Pakistan-born writer, broadcaster and commentator
Published: 31 December 2007
Six hours before she was executed, Mary, Queen of Scots wrote to her brother-in-law, Henry III of France: "...As for my son, I commend him to you in so far as he deserves, for I cannot answer for him." The year was 1587.
On 30 December 2007, a conclave of feudal potentates gathered in the home of the slain Benazir Bhutto to hear her last will and testament being read out and its contents subsequently announced to the world media. Where Mary was tentative, her modern-day equivalent left no room for doubt. She could certainly answer for her son.
A triumvirate consisting of her husband, Asif Zardari (one of the most venal and discredited politicians in the country and still facing corruption charges in three European courts) and two ciphers will run the party till Benazir's 19-year-old son, Bilawal, comes of age. He will then become chairperson-for-life and, no doubt, pass it on to his children. The fact that this is now official does not make it any less grotesque. The Pakistan People's Party is being treated as a family heirloom, a property to be disposed of at the will of its leader.
Nothing more, nothing less. Poor Pakistan. Poor People's Party supporters. Both deserve better than this disgusting, medieval charade.
Benazir's last decision was in the same autocratic mode as its predecessors, an approach that would cost her – tragically – her own life. Had she heeded the advice of some party leaders and not agreed to the Washington-brokered deal with Pervez Musharraf or, even later, decided to boycott his parliamentary election she might still have been alive. Her last gift to the country does not augur well for its future.
How can Western-backed politicians be taken seriously if they treat their party as a fiefdom and their supporters as serfs, while their courtiers abroad mouth sycophantic niceties concerning the young prince and his future.
That most of the PPP inner circle consists of spineless timeservers leading frustrated and melancholy lives is no excuse. All this could be transformed if inner-party democracy was implemented. There is a tiny layer of incorruptible and principled politicians inside the party, but they have been sidelined. Dynastic politics is a sign of weakness, not strength. Benazir was fond of comparing her family to the Kennedys, but chose to ignore that the Democratic Party, despite an addiction to big money, was not the instrument of any one family.
The issue of democracy is enormously important in a country that has been governed by the military for over half of its life. Pakistan is not a "failed state" in the sense of the Congo or Rwanda. It is a dysfunctional state and has been in this situation for almost four decades.
At the heart of this dysfunctionality is the domination by the army and each period of military rule has made things worse. It is this that has prevented political stability and the emergence of stable institutions. Here the US bears direct responsibility, since it has always regarded the military as the only institution it can do business with and, unfortunately, still does so. This is the rock that has focused choppy waters into a headlong torrent.
The military's weaknesses are well known and have been amply documented. But the politicians are not in a position to cast stones. After all, Mr Musharraf did not pioneer the assault on the judiciary so conveniently overlooked by the US Deputy Secretary of State, John Negroponte, and the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. The first attack on the Supreme Court was mounted by Nawaz Sharif's goons who physically assaulted judges because they were angered by a decision that ran counter to their master's interests when he was prime minister.
Some of us had hoped that, with her death, the People's Party might start a new chapter. After all, one of its main leaders, Aitzaz Ahsan, president of the Bar Association, played a heroic role in the popular movement against the dismissal of the chief justice. Mr Ahsan was arrested during the emergency and kept in solitary confinement. He is still under house arrest in Lahore. Had Benazir been capable of thinking beyond family and faction she should have appointed him chairperson pending elections within the party. No such luck.
The result almost certainly will be a split in the party sooner rather than later. Mr Zardari was loathed by many activists and held responsible for his wife's downfall. Once emotions have subsided, the horror of the succession will hit the many traditional PPP followers except for its most reactionary segment: bandwagon careerists desperate to make a fortune.
All this could have been avoided, but the deadly angel who guided her when she was alive was, alas, not too concerned with democracy. And now he is in effect leader of the party.
Meanwhile there is a country in crisis. Having succeeded in saving his own political skin by imposing a state of emergency, Mr Musharraf still lacks legitimacy. Even a rigged election is no longer possible on 8 January despite the stern admonitions of President George Bush and his unconvincing Downing Street adjutant. What is clear is that the official consensus on who killed Benazir is breaking down, except on BBC television. It has now been made public that, when Benazir asked the US for a Karzai-style phalanx of privately contracted former US Marine bodyguards, the suggestion was contemptuously rejected by the Pakistan government, which saw it as a breach of sovereignty.
Now both Hillary Clinton and Senator Joseph Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, are pinning the convict's badge on Mr Musharraf and not al-Qa'ida for the murder, a sure sign that sections of the US establishment are thinking of dumping the President.
Their problem is that, with Benazir dead, the only other alternative for them is General Ashraf Kiyani, head of the army. Nawaz Sharif is seen as a Saudi poodle and hence unreliable, though, given the US-Saudi alliance, poor Mr Sharif is puzzled as to why this should be the case. For his part, he is ready to do Washiongton's bidding but would prefer the Saudi King rather than Mr Musharraf to be the imperial message-boy.
A solution to the crisis is available. This would require Mr Musharraf's replacement by a less contentious figure, an all-party government of unity to prepare the basis for genuine elections within six months, and the reinstatement of the sacked Supreme Court judges to investigate Benazir's murder without fear or favour. It would be a start.
Zardari is the mover behind this, as he clearly hopes to capitalise on the "regency" of his son. Unfortunately for Pakistan, he is widely loathed and will almost certainly split the PPP.
Another aspect is confusing me. Whereas I suspect elements of Musharraf's administration helped the assassins, I doubt if the president himself had any real connection. Why then, did he authorise the plainly preposterous stories about the circumstances of Bhutto's death? Video evidence now being released plainly shows her being hit by a bullet.
Does anyone have any theories on why he would make such a divisive move? I can't see even the twisted logic - he must have known the truth would emerge quickly?
Civil war is looming closer, I fear.
HoreTore
12-31-2007, 16:13
I for one was delighted to learn last night that Mrs Bhutto's 19 year old son has been appointed leader of her political party. I feel this is an exciting and vibrant approach to democracy.
Yes, it's always nice to see how democracies turn hereditary....
Seriously, how people can say something good about these people is beyond me. I can't say that I've seen much evidence that they're not a corrupt bunch of power-abusers, and that's generally not the people you want to support, now is it?
And don't even think about saying that "Bhutto is all there is!!11". No, they're not. There are millions of people to choose from. That not even one of them can be a good and fair national leader goes against logic.
Banquo's Ghost
12-31-2007, 16:39
Seriously, how people can say something good about these people is beyond me. I can't say that I've seen much evidence that they're not a corrupt bunch of power-abusers, and that's generally not the people you want to support, now is it?
Really HoreTore, being corrupt as a three week old banana never disqualified a chap from high office in a democracy.
Look at us, we've had the cream of corruption (http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/1231/ahernb.html) in office for sixty years and it hasn't done us much harm - and we keep electing the :daisy:.
Hasn't done Dick Cheney any harm either. :wink3:
English assassin
12-31-2007, 16:41
Note: Doesn't he (Bhutto's son) currently have a day-job as Oxford student?
Hmm, Christchurch college, apparently, or "Hice" as its dentally and very likely genetically challenged inhabitants call it.
I suppose I should be grateful its not Balliol.
Mind you being an Oxford undergraduate does not make excessive demands on one's time, and he's probably reading some dossy subject like PPE. I reckon I could have run at least a small country while I was there. Denmark, maybe.
:clown:
Banquo's Ghost
12-31-2007, 16:45
Mind you being an Oxford undergraduate does not make excessive demands on one's time, and he's probably reading some dossy subject like PPE. I reckon I could have run at least a small country while I was there. Denmark, maybe.
Don't tell me - a Magdalen man?
Another opinion piece on Benazir Bhutto's death.
Bhutto likely wouldn't have saved Pakistan
Her death will probably prolong crisis, though
GWYNN DYER
Benazir Bhutto did five years of hard time in prison, much of it in solitary confinement, after her father, Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was overthrown and hanged by the worst of Pakistan's military dictators, Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq.
But she was a woman who liked her privileges and her luxuries, and she was never a very effective politician.
I got to know Benazir Bhutto a bit in the mid-1970s, when she had finished her degree at Harvard and was doing graduate work at Oxford University.
She actually spent much of her time in London, in a grand 3/4at she kept just off Hyde Park.
If you knew a lot of people in town who took an interest in Middle Eastern and subcontinental affairs (I had been studying at the School of Oriental and African Studies), and you weren't too old or too boring, you were likely to end up at her 3/4at once in a while, at what some would call a salon but I would call a party.
A fairly decorous party as those things went in '70s London, to be sure, with everybody showing off their sophisticated knowledge of the region's politics and nobody getting out of hand, but definitely a party.
The hostess was well informed and quite clever, and she obviously had money coming out of her ears.
We knew her dad had been prime minister of Pakistan before Zia overthrew him, of course, but she was neither a serious scholar nor a budding politician.
She seemed more American than Pakistani in her style and attitudes, but beneath the Radcliffe and Harvard veneer she also seemed like thousands of other young upper-class women from Pakistan and India who were 3/4oating around London at the time.
They called one another by girlish nicknames like "Bubbles," they didn't take anything very seriously (including their studies), and they seemed destined for a life of idle privilege.
Then Bhutto went back to Pakistan in 1977, just about the time that Zia had her father sentenced to death in a rigged trial.
He was hanged in 1979, and his daughter was thrown into jail for five years.
But when she came out after Zia died, Bhutto was already the head of the party her father had founded, the Pakistan People's Party, and by 1988 she was prime minister. She was only 35.
The problem was that she never seemed to have any goal in politics, apart from vindicating her father by leading his party back to power.
At the start she was hugely popular, but she wasted her opportunity to make real changes in Pakistan because she had no notion (beyond the usual rhetoric) of what a better Pakistan would look like.
Pakistan is already pretty good for her sort of people, so it should not surprise us that there was almost nothing to show for her years in office.
If she had become prime minister again, which was a quite likely outcome of the current crisis, there is no reason to believe she would have done any better this time.
Her assassination just makes it harder to solve the crisis at all.
The most probable outcome is a new period of military rule under a different ruler, simply for lack of a good alternative.
It is pathetic that a country the size of Pakistan should have so few inspiring or even promising candidates for high political office.
The vast majority of Pakistan's politicians, and of the people who run pretty well everything else in the country apart from the armed forces, are drawn from the three or four per cent of the population who constitute the country's traditional elite.
It is a very shallow pool of talent, made up of people who have a big stake in the status quo and a huge sense of entitlement.
Look east to India, west to Iran, or north to China, and by comparison Pakistan's political demography is absolutely feudal.
So long as that remains the case, it is absurd to imagine that democracy will solve Pakistan's problems.
I admired Benazir Bhutto's courage and I am very sorry that she was killed, but she could never have been Pakistan's saviour.
Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries
http://www.hfxnews.ca/index.cfm?sid=93503&sc=93
Tribesman
01-01-2008, 03:43
Look at us,
Hey come on Banquo that ain't fair , all that crap with corruption political dynasties positions being passed from father to son or brother or nephew without election, clerical interference , dodgy founding constitution hostility to neighbours of the wrong religeon , bugger me it ain't like Irelands Muslim or anything is it .
Stone me next thing you is gonna say is that we have terrorist bollox running around the place and gobshites in government condemning them while supplying them with guns and cash:dizzy2:
Get with the program will ya ..its Muslims and only Muslims .:idea2:
Vladimir
01-02-2008, 18:56
Another aspect is confusing me. Whereas I suspect elements of Musharraf's administration helped the assassins, I doubt if the president himself had any real connection. Why then, did he authorise the plainly preposterous stories about the circumstances of Bhutto's death? Video evidence now being released plainly shows her being hit by a bullet.
Does anyone have any theories on why he would make such a divisive move? I can't see even the twisted logic - he must have known the truth would emerge quickly?
Civil war is looming closer, I fear.
Because civil war is looming. The stories distance the attacker from her death. If her death was actually caused by those who were sworn to protect her, they share the blame. This would reduce the reaction, anti-Musharif or Talaban, by confusing the situation making it easier to control.
Don't assume that they had access to or viewed the details of the video: "Video evidence is now being released." I'm unaware as to how the stories were released or the timing. Don't assume "he" authorized their release. It may not have been part of a coordinated effort to deceive the people but put out quickly to stand on its own. Never say "must have known", this is a crisis.
Tribesman
01-02-2008, 20:37
Don't assume that they had access to or viewed the details of the video
Yeah don't assume that they had access to the video .
Why would they even want access to the video , after all its only today following international outcry over the handling of the mess that they have even bothered interviewing witnessess , still lucky they preserved the crimescene for a proper investigation .:oops: oh dear it was more important to get traffic flowing by removing everything from the scene than to conduct any examinations .
Because civil war is looming.
Civil war with whom exactly? Hate to be the barer of bad news bu the general holds all the cards. Sure he isnt technically a general anymore but he has his thumb firmly on the institutions that make Pakistan a nation.
Now that said, Im sure the situation on the street will not improve much until he is gone. However I dont think we are staring down a somallia here either.
Tribesman
01-02-2008, 20:57
Civil war with whom exactly?
What ? Do you mean on top of the several civil wars they have already ?
Hate to be the barer of bad news bu the general holds all the cards. Sure he isnt technically a general anymore but he has his thumb firmly on the institutions that make Pakistan a nation.
Sorry Odin but :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: the dictator doesn't hold all the cards , he is standing on a very wobbly house of cards with his thumb firmly wedged up his rear to stop himself soiling himself . He is desperate that too many elements in that weak structure don't pull out from under him and bring the whole house tumbling down .
What ? Do you mean on top of the several civil wars they have already ?
No the one vlad believes is pending. With whom exactly? If he had used the term -civil unrest- that would have been appropriate, civil war suggests something entirely different then the current situation.
Sorry Odin but :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: the dictator doesn't hold all the cards , he is standing on a very wobbly house of cards with his thumb firmly wedged up his rear to stop himself soiling himself . He is desperate that too many elements in that weak structure don't pull out from under him and bring the whole house tumbling down .
He just refilled the judiciary with his people, the election commission as well (have to check that one) and is less then 30 days removed as being head huncho from the military.
He may be standing on a wobbly house of cards, but he's still the one up there. There isnt a coherent organized body that can challenge him (yet) on institutional matters, he controls it. The military is a wildcard, but to date I havent seen new general A step out of the shadows and proclaim his new reign.
Until that happens ( a pakistani tradition) Musharf still holds the most cards.
CountArach
01-02-2008, 21:06
And what a shock...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/02/2130746.htm
Election postponed until February 18...
Vladimir
01-02-2008, 21:07
*sigh* I was playing on Banquo's post. Besides, they're already facing civil wars. Your statement makes me think you have a very Western definition of it.
With whom? Does it matter? The Shah* also held most of the cards.
*Humbled by the Don.
*sigh* I was playing on Banquo's post. Besides, they're already facing civil wars. Your statement makes me think you have a very Western definition of it.
With whom? Does it matter? The Shaw also held most of the cards.
You can play off of anyones post the point is you posted it. Like me when you post something in the backroom you own its content.
I am not sure what you mean by "western definition" as my question was simple, no matter where you happen to be living. With whom is the pending civil war? Civil unrest okay, but there arent defined factions at play here at this point in time, just anger.
Perhaps you could give a better definition then? Or maybe you can wait for someone else to post so you can play off of it.
Yes it does matter, because the ramblings on about civil war reak of a bleakness that feeds into the hysteria of the situation at its present state. Elections can still happen, a party not alligned with the general can still win the majority.
Im not trying to portray things as rosey by any stretch but the political mechanisms are still in place. Now after the election, should the former general pull the plug then I'll sign on to the hysteria and hope for the best.
until then Bhutto's assination while a tradgedy for moderation dosent mean the end of a potential sharing deal with her party and musharf.
Don Corleone
01-02-2008, 22:09
With whom? Does it matter? The Shaw also held most of the cards.
Yes, and in some enclaves, even a tangential reference to old George Bernard will drive the older generation into fits of terror. :laugh4: Uhm, I think you meant 'Shah'.
But I personally think Pervez Musharaf backed the concocted story because the assisination rocked him to his core. Nobody would know better than he just how high in his own inner circle such an order must have come from. I think he was attempting to 'whistle past the graveyard', right until the video evidence came to light forcing that option away.
Odin, it's been tacitly acknowledged for some time now that Musharaf may be the strongman, but elements within his own faction are actually quite cozy with Al-Queda, and they are the primary reason the situation in Eastern Afghanistan/Western Pakistan continues to exist. One day, they're going to decide they don't need old Pervez anymore. Hopefully, that day isn't in the next couple of weeks. :skull:
As far as selecting Benazir's son as the heir apparent, I think we're all shooting from the hip. The situation over there is chaotic. I think the son's annointing was done to attempt to impart some modicum of stability.
And is it just me, or am I the only one that takes umbrage by the suggestion that talking to U.S. diplomats was what got Benazhir killed? I can think of 5 better reasons why the hard-line extremists wanted her killed, the fact that she's a woman yet not submissive being top of the list.
KukriKhan
01-02-2008, 22:17
After rejecting a UN investigation, does Musharraf's request for a Scotland Yard team (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7192700,00.html) signal his distrust of his own police services, or is it just window dressing to placate the outside world?
Don Corleone
01-02-2008, 22:21
I'm not certain, but I think it was a terrible mistake. One of the biggest catalysts fanning the flames of rebellion over there right now is the perception (correct or incorrect) held out by the Taleban/Al-Queda types that Mushareff is a Western puppet. This is only going to fan those flames. I think he should have picked someplace neutral with superior investegative powers, such as Singapore.
After rejecting a UN investigation, does Musharraf's request for a Scotland Yard team (http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7192700,00.html) signal his distrust of his own police services, or is it just window dressing to placate the outside world?
Watch The Kingdom (http://www.thekingdommovie.com/). Good movie, with related perspectives.
Odin, it's been tacitly acknowledged for some time now that Musharaf may be the strongman, but elements within his own faction are actually quite cozy with Al-Queda, and they are the primary reason the situation in Eastern Afghanistan/Western Pakistan continues to exist. One day, they're going to decide they don't need old Pervez anymore. Hopefully, that day isn't in the next couple of weeks. :skull:
Oh I concede he isnt on the best footing, but given all the players in the game at this time he's still the one with the most power. He is also the one with the most to loose. However I do find the hysteria over all this to be a bit confusing, as I said before Bhutto was off the plane for 30 minutes and bombs were going off designed to kill her.
I hardly find the current circumstance unexpected, unless there are some out there who believed Ms Bhutto was going into a power sharing government with the ex general on a anti fundementalist adgenda? :laugh4:
I've got bridges for sale too BTW....
As far as the unrest, thats what it is unrest, Pakistan for all its intriquing demographics dosent appear to be heading down the road of a failed state at this point. Why? It seems to me the ex general for all his weaknesses has for now put in place the institutional mechanisms (election committee, supreme court, military) that will enable him to continue his rule in some capacity.
Not the ideal situation by any means but again at this point its not like were staring down another somallia.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.