Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
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 .Quote:
You missed the sarcasm mate.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
Al-Qaeda claims responsibility:
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English...1.0.1710322437
"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:Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
: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; 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:
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.
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
The only single reassuring fact is that Pakistan has been through heaven and hell, quite literally, so there is some hope it will survive.Quote:
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 thing is who is behind Musharraf .Quote:
Worrying. I'd be surprised if it was actually Musharraf behind this, and think this is yet another sign of him gradually losing power.
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
Of course it will survive, the only surprising thing about this assination is the reaction of surprise by the media/population.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinan
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
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.
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 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Rather then read into and assume what you mean I'll just ask. Do you mean to say that the cancer would be Islam?Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt
ARGhhh...You tried it your way and now look where you ended up. She says objections BUT NO pluasible plan of action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Odin
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt
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.
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.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
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?
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?
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.
Stinks of the Bush-Mush PR factory. Did the sunroof kill the sniper that blew himself up afterwards too?Quote:
Originally Posted by FactionHeir
Where did you read that at? None of the sources I have read mentioned anything now about her actually being hit by the gunshots.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt
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.
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.