Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...28/2128035.htm

Quote:

---

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...

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.

Yeah, as strange as this may seem, this seems like it may actually be enough to rally the Pakistani public against extremists. I hope....

Even when the extreemists are government supporters?

I'm not so sure.

Then the government needs to be handed over to more peaceful and responsible people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

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.

Which is why this event is so troubling to many Westerners (and Australians)

Welcome to FRONTLINE: PAKISTAN!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

Tragic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinan

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinan

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!.

With her death, hopefully, will destroy any popular support for the Taliban. The insurgency is only successful if it has local support.

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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".

Quote:

---

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 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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 !!!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

joking!

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:

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boyar Son

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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.

Quote:

---

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 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ice

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

"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:

: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

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 only single reassuring fact is that Pakistan has been through heaven and hell, quite literally, so there is some hope it will survive.

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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sinan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CountArach

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

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.

You live in the UK and don't watch BBC NEWS? They were saying she was hit in the neck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slug For A Butt

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.

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.

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?