Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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;

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/20...742858-ap.html

I have no idea what CNews is.

Isn't that what I posted earlier?

According to this 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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

God forgive me cause I really abhore ignorance.

---

Come on Sinan don't insult the ignorant by aligning them with the twisted .

Quote:

---

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 .

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.

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinan

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinan

No offence or insult intended. :bow:

---

None at all taken. :bow:

The only way to heal the wound of partition is reunification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

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.

Just another corrupt and criminal third world leader getting exactly what she deserved...

Why should I care about this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinan

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.

Bilawal Bhutto

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinan

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).

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

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:

Quote:

---

A tragic loss.

---

Not so much a tragic loss , rather more of a tragic occurance

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinan

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?

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.