The assassination of former PM Bhutto [Archive]

View Full Version : The assassination of former PM Bhutto

Dorothea

28th December 2007, 09:32 PM

Has anyone been following this story? What do you think that means for Pakistan's stability, if anything, and how does it effect the US?

Akathist

29th December 2007, 02:10 AM

I was shocked when I heard the news. But then, I realized that when I saw an interview with her on TV a bit ago I had thought at the time: "She is an assassination risk."

I think the dictator will be staying in charge of Pakistan. This will lead I believe to much human suffering.

I don't know how this will effect the US. It may effect what kind of aid we provide. I wouldn't be surprised if the US eventually decided to step in as a part of NATO. I am not sure how I feel about that.

Orthosdoxa

29th December 2007, 04:34 AM

Akathist

30th December 2007, 05:49 AM

Thread was closed for staff review and is now open.

ThePosterFormerlyKnownAs

30th December 2007, 09:41 AM

Here's everyone's favorite crazy uncle, Ron Paul:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28423_Ron_Paul_Blames_US_Policy_for_Bhutto_Killing&only

Of course it's our fault. If the earth opens up in Jakarta tomorrow and swallows a bunch of people, that too will somehow be our fault. Yippee!

Well, if US scientists had been doing some kind of experimentation near Jakarta involving seismic activity that had caused tremors regularly ever since they started, there might be something to it. ;)

Still, I don't know that I would lay the blame solely at the door of the US since religious fanatics are certainly responsible for their own actions but I think he's right in his general opinion that we wouldn't be nearly the target we are if we weren't shoving Israel and democracy down everyone's throats. I can understand why so many people think the US is imperialist when you look at how often we get involved in the conflicts of others, usually for the purpose of spreading democracy.

It is a tragedy about the assassination. I can't imagine the mindset of someone to go to such lengths to murder someone. All I can do is pray for everyone involved. :(

kamikat

30th December 2007, 10:31 AM

I can't say that I was surprised to read the news. She had been under assassination threats for a very long time. I wouldn't be surprised if Musharraf cancels the elections. I hope this will open the eyes of our administration to the fact that Pakistan is just as bad off as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, ect.

Orthosdoxa

1st January 2008, 07:09 PM

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22995050-7583,00.html

Pamela Bone | January 02, 2008

ARE women across the world mourning Benazir Bhutto? They should be. Not because she was a saint; she wasn't. She was at least a beneficiary of the billions stolen by her husband from the people of Pakistan. Nor did she do anything much for Pakistani women during her two periods of leadership, declining even to try to repeal the infamous Hudood laws whereby rape victims can be punished for adultery.
She should be mourned not because of what she was but because of what she symbolised. Her death was a political assassination, not an honour killing, as some have said.
Nevertheless it was a reminder of what we face. Bhutto was murdered because to her enemies she was Westernised, a traitor to her culture and an American stooge. She was murdered because she had vowed to bring secularism and democracy to Pakistan. She was murdered because she was all these things, and a woman.
"I know I am a symbol of what the so-called jihadists, Taliban and al-Qa'ida, most fear," she wrote in her autobiography, Daughter of the East. "I am a female political leader fighting to bring modernity, communication, education and technology to Pakistan."
Yes, fear is the right word. The fear of women, of women's freedom, and most of all, of women's sexuality, runs through Islamism. It is a large part of Islamist hatred of the West. "The issue of women is not marginal," writes the Dutch scholar Ian Buruma. "It lies at the heart of Islamic occidentalism (anti-Westernism)."
It is the "deep, ignored issue", writes Paul Berman, author of Terror and Liberalism. Why, I wonder, is it mainly men who are making these points?
To call these warriors for God sexually repressed is to absurdly understate it. Consider Mohammad Atta, one of the September 11 hijackers who -- despite having spent his last nights in the US going to strip clubs -- wrote in his will that no pregnant woman or other "unclean person" should come to his funeral and that no woman should visit his grave.
Or Sayyid Qutb, the Egyptian philosopher, one of the chief inspirations for al-Qa'ida, who, during a visit to the US in 1948, wrote home about the "seductiveness' of young women he saw dancing at a church hall (to the song, Baby It's Cold Outside), about the "shocking sensuality" of women everywhere he went in the country.
Consider that in parts of Afghanistan still controlled by the Taliban, so great is the need to keep women powerless, silent and invisible that girls' schools are burned down and a male schoolteacher who defied an order to stop educating girls was last year killed and dismembered.
No wonder they hated Bhutto, the first woman to lead a Muslim country, who was not only brave and strong but physically beautiful, her loosely draped Islamic headscarf more an object of adornment than of modesty. No wonder Islamist militants had been trying to kill her for more than a decade.
(Ramzi Yousef, now in prison in the US for his part in the first attempt to blow up the twin towers in 1993, had earlier attempted to assassinate her.)
Now they have succeeded. Her murder is most likely the work of al-Qa'ida or its allies inside Pakistan. Certainly, they've expressed glee at her death.
If the fact that she was a Western-educated woman seeking power in lands they claim as their own was not reason enough, killing her meant they could disrupt the scheduled elections and maintain instability in Pakistan, which would allow them to continue using that country's territory to train the increasing numbers of willing martyrs, funded by trillions of dollars from opium sales.
One wonders why the Western powers don't make a co-ordinated effort to defoliate Afghanistan's opium fields.
Al-Qa'ida has made it perfectly clear that its aim is an Islamic caliphate, first in all nominally Muslim countries and ultimately in the whole world. The jihadis would, if they could, impose the same rampant misogyny on women worldwide as was, and still is to a large extent, imposed on the women of Afghanistan.
They can't win. No one, apart from extremists like themselves, wants the kind of society they envisage. But they could, if the West fails in its determination, win enough to make life very unpleasant for millions of women for a generation or more.
The best hope is that Bhutto's assassination will galvanise opposition to Islamism in Pakistan and elsewhere. It is a small hope. At present, the Islamists are triumphant and energised.
Meanwhile, in Australia, the very people who once would have fought against everything the Islamists stand for are instead obsessed with showing their support for David Hicks, that very stupid young man who once trained on the Islamists' side.
Could the murder of Bhutto be enough to wake up Western women to the fact that the war being waged by the Islamists is very much about them? Could the modern Left be persuaded that the people who killed Bhutto are the ones we are fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq and other places across the world? Can we, in our niceness, stop telling ourselves they are justified in their hatred of us?
Maybe they are. God knows the West has made more than enough blunders, supporting corrupt dictators wherever it deemed it suitable. But as British writer Nick Cohen notes, what the Islamists hate is not the worst of us but the best of us: human rights, the rule of law, the equality of women and all those other freedoms we take so much for granted.
Pamela Bone is a Melbourne writer.

Heorhij

1st January 2008, 07:48 PM

MariaRegina

1st January 2008, 08:02 PM

My prayers.

I agree Heorhij. We do not need to stage wars in order to test our latest capabilities.

No more wag the dogs.

SpyridonOCA

1st January 2008, 08:19 PM

Here's everyone's favorite crazy uncle, Ron Paul:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28423_Ron_Paul_Blames_US_Policy_for_Bhutto_Killing&only

Of course it's our fault. If the earth opens up in Jakarta tomorrow and swallows a bunch of people, that too will somehow be our fault. Yippee!

In favoring stability over democracy, the United States government has supported a dictatorship in Pakistan which has taken a blind eye to Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations. Ron Paul is right that our tax dollars shouldn't be going to support dictators, regardless of whether they support our short-term interests in the Middle East. The recent chaos in Pakistan proves just how wrong Bush's policy in the Middle East has been. It's sad that you'd rather attack Dr. Paul than recognize the obvious blunders of American foreign policy.

Heorhij

2nd January 2008, 10:47 AM

In favoring stability over democracy, the United States government has supported a dictatorship in Pakistan which has taken a blind eye to Al Qaeda and other extremist organizations. Ron Paul is right that our tax dollars shouldn't be going to support dictators, regardless of whether they support our short-term interests in the Middle East. The recent chaos in Pakistan proves just how wrong Bush's policy in the Middle East has been. It's sad that you'd rather attack Dr. Paul than recognize the obvious blunders of American foreign policy.
I am afraid that it all has nothing to do with rightness or wrongness of the "American policy" that the public is fed by the electronic dumbing-down machines like TV sets.:) Musharaff is not more of a "dictator" than the Saudi rulers, and he tried to maintain stability the way he knew how. Some powerful forces do not like it, they want unstable, boiling Islamic "revolutionary" Pakistan, as a good excuse to start a war on the global scale.

Dorothea

2nd January 2008, 04:02 PM

Happy New Year, everyone...

Well... I hope I'm wrong, but I am so afraid that it's this one big "pre-milleniarist" pro-Israel plot... People who are pulling the strings are not interested in stable democratic Pakistan. They want another Iran... and maybe (God forbid...) they will soon have it. And then the bombs will be dropped, the kids will be baked alive, and so on and so forth...

I know, I am terribly pessimistic, I have no faith in anything human, democratic, Jeffersonian, blahblah-blah... I only pray that we don't have this full-scale third world war with the goal (set up by the pre-milleniarists) to physically annihilate Muslims.
I don't feel like that at all. I feel and have felt the US government has always been careful with Pakistan because of their nukes and shaky ally roll. The government didn't want to upset the apple cart, so to speak. The last thing we'd want is for Pakistan's government to go into anarchy (I hope that's the right word), and have some nut take over there. Then, we maybe in a world of hurt. This is one thing that causes me to believe Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be the leader of the US, because of his suggestions on going into Pakistan to kill terrorists. He'd said something like if Musharraf didn't do what we wanted, he'd sent our troops in there. Baaaadddd idea, imo. We've got shaky, delicate relations as it is.

Heorhij

2nd January 2008, 04:20 PM

I don't feel like that at all. I feel and have felt the US government has always been careful with Pakistan because of their nukes and shaky ally roll. The government didn't want to upset the apple cart, so to speak. The last thing we'd want is for Pakistan's government to go into anarchy (I hope that's the right word), and have some nut take over there. Then, we maybe in a world of hurt. This is one thing that causes me to believe Barack Obama is too inexperienced to be the leader of the US, because of his suggestions on going into Pakistan to kill terrorists. He'd said something like if Musharraf didn't do what we wanted, he'd sent our troops in there. Baaaadddd idea, imo. We've got shaky, delicate relations as it is.
Yes, that's exactly what your "box" (TV) feeds you with :(

Heorhij

2nd January 2008, 04:31 PM

Yes, that's exactly what your "box" (TV) feeds you with :(
Just wanted to add that I don't want to sound like a conspirologist, but after the beginning of the Iraq war I just totally, completely stopped to believe anything I hear from the US television or read in their newspapers. *ANY*thing.

Orthosdoxa

2nd January 2008, 05:27 PM

Q - How many wild-eyed conspiracy theorists does it take to fill TAW?

A - Who are you and why do you want to know?!

SpyridonOCA

2nd January 2008, 06:04 PM

Q - How many wild-eyed conspiracy theorists does it take to fill TAW?

A - Who are you and why do you want to know?!

If you equate Ron Paul supporters with "wild-eye conspiracy theorists," that is your problem and your problem alone.

Orthosdoxa

2nd January 2008, 06:21 PM

This is the second time in 24 hours I've said something that had NOTHING to do with Ron Paul, and those who worship him have answered as though I did. You're starting to look like he's your cult leader or something.

Nichole

2nd January 2008, 07:14 PM

Just wanted to add that I don't want to sound like a conspirologist, but after the beginning of the Iraq war I just totally, completely stopped to believe anything I hear from the US television or read in their newspapers. *ANY*thing.
Yes and you shouldn't watch tv or read the paper when it has to deal anything with Iraq!!!!! American media over emphasizes everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AxionEsti

2nd January 2008, 07:42 PM

Well I believe it is truly sad she was assassinated, because she was a hope for Pakistan. Now, her son is attempting to take her place. I hope he is not in such danger. :crosseo:

AxionEsti

2nd January 2008, 07:44 PM

Oh, and if the terrorists take over Pakistan, then they have the nukes. :eek:

Lord, have mercy! :crosseo:

SpyridonOCA

2nd January 2008, 07:59 PM

Oh, and if the terrorists take over Pakistan, then they have the nukes. :eek:

Remember, it is the government of Pakistan that made a truce with al-Qaeda.

Heorhij

2nd January 2008, 09:30 PM

Just wanted to add that I don't want to sound like a conspirologist, but after the beginning of the Iraq war I just totally, completely stopped to believe anything I hear from the US television or read in their newspapers. *ANY*thing.
Dear Orthosdoxa , but how in the world do you know what you seem to know? What are your sources? You see, I really, really hate-hate-hate to sound like a stupid conspiracy theorist as much as the next guy... but in March 2003, if someone said, "oh, Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction whatsoever, and the US wants to "do" this war for reasons that have nothing in the world to do with 9-11 or WMD" - you would most certainly say that this person is a conspiracy theorist, no?

Just recall all the talk on your dumbing down "box" back then, and compare it with what you know now... Well... unless, of course, you are one of the people who say that if "we" (i.e. the poor US kids who sold their lives and souls for tuition money and the like) go to Syria, and Iran, and..., and ...., - then we will certainly find the WMDs..."

In 1999, were Serbs the "anti-democratic force" that deserved to be bombed to stone age, with thousands of men, women, and children killed, with kids baked alive (do you have kids...?) - as your dumbing-down box told you they were?

Again, I just really don't know what to believe anymore, except God...

Dorothea

2nd January 2008, 11:29 PM

Yes, that's exactly what your "box" (TV) feeds you with :(
Yeah, I'm being lied to by the nasty, evil US government. :sigh: Why is it any time I say anything, I get these types of responses about my government? http://209.85.12.227/html/emoticons/wacko.gif

machismo

3rd January 2008, 02:39 AM

Orthosdoxa...Ron Paul never said anything even close to the lie that is the headline of your link...

Heorhij

3rd January 2008, 10:54 AM

Dorothea

3rd January 2008, 02:39 PM

(Dorotheea) "Yeah, I'm being lied to by the nasty, evil US government. Why is it any time I say anything, I get these types of responses about my government?"

But is it really "yours?" Can you really say that after the Iraq war, which this government started on absolutely false pretenses? Can you guarantee that it will not strat another war on false pretenses tomorrow? Can you influence on that? It does seem to me that you cannot. So this government is not really yours. I am not liking what I'm writing, I don't like being cynical, but I just cannot NOT be cynical and remain honest...

Yes, I can. There is no proof that the war was started on false pretenses. Everyone thought there were WMD's there, including the previous president and congress, not just Bush. Nothing has come out to say that Bush went there for oil or for revenge of the death threats to his dad that I've heard for the past 2 years from liberals on another website that I talk politics on.

What I see here is that you've jumped on the band wagon of "Bush lied, people died" that picked up steam the past few years. There is no evidence of any of the allegations. If they find any evidence, concrete, I'll concede to it. Do I think our president or government are perfect, no, but I certainly don't believe any president would put our troops out there and have thousands killed just for personal gain or interest. Call me naive. I don't care. :D

Orthosdoxa

3rd January 2008, 02:52 PM

Orthosdoxa...Ron Paul never said anything even close to the lie that is the headline of your link...

Why are you posting under a sock? This statement, plus the ellipses, seems like repentant's writing style, minus the usual anger and contempt. Why not just post as yourself?

And there's video of him to go along with the headline, so believe what you like. I don't care either way.

What is this obsession with L. Ron Paul here? His own statements turn me off enough but the quasi-cult leader status he has gained among his followers makes me want to vomit. My dislike of him has so wounded his worshippers here that even when I'm talking about something completely different, they angrily bring up my dislike of him in their rejoinders. It's totally bizarre.

Heorhij

3rd January 2008, 09:22 PM

Yes, I can. There is no proof that the war was started on false pretenses. Everyone thought there were WMD's there, including the previous president and congress, not just Bush. Nothing has come out to say that Bush went there for oil or for revenge of the death threats to his dad that I've heard for the past 2 years from liberals on another website that I talk politics on.

What I see here is that you've jumped on the band wagon of "Bush lied, people died" that picked up steam the past few years. There is no evidence of any of the allegations. If they find any evidence, concrete, I'll concede to it. Do I think our president or government are perfect, no, but I certainly don't believe any president would put our troops out there and have thousands killed just for personal gain or interest. Call me naive. I don't care. :D
Sorry, but that just does not hold any water. Very many people were actually convinced that Irag had no WMDs. I do very clearly remember Web forums and blogs of February-March 2003 where there were gazillions of quotes from those who said that Irag never had any WMDs. I think I can pull some of that out, except that I am not sure that this forum is the right place for this kind of discussion (and I am, generally, not a strong debator). The problem was not that "everyone thought Iraq had WMDs," but in that everyone who said otherwise was immediately labeled either terrorist of conspirologist...

Closer to the topic of this thread, my wife - a university teacher like myself - had a conversation with a Pakistani student earlier today. The student, an academically top person, a young female, told her that there is no such thing as "movement for democracy" in Pakistan today. Pakistan is a feudal society. Musharaff, with all his autocratic shortcomings, tries to hold it together rather than let it all slide to a madhouse of "Islamic Revolution," but the US seems to do everything to make him fail. BTW, the student says that all her big family (or a clan, if you will) loves Benazir Bhutto (not as much her husband, whom they all blame in real corruption), but they, at the moment, stand for Musharaff anyway.

Dorothea

3rd January 2008, 11:14 PM

Sorry, but that just does not hold any water. Very many people were actually convinced that Irag had no WMDs. I do very clearly remember Web forums and blogs of February-March 2003 where there were gazillions of quotes from those who said that Irag never had any WMDs. I think I can pull some of that out, except that I am not sure that this forum is the right place for this kind of discussion (and I am, generally, not a strong debator). The problem was not that "everyone thought Iraq had WMDs," but in that everyone who said otherwise was immediately labeled either terrorist of conspirologist...

Closer to the topic of this thread, my wife - a university teacher like myself - had a conversation with a Pakistani student earlier today. The student, an academically top person, a young female, told her that there is no such thing as "movement for democracy" in Pakistan today. Pakistan is a feudal society. Musharaff, with all his autocratic shortcomings, tries to hold it together rather than let it all slide to a madhouse of "Islamic Revolution," but the US seems to do everything to make him fail. BTW, the student says that all her big family (or a clan, if you will) loves Benazir Bhutto (not as much her husband, whom they all blame in real corruption), but they, at the moment, stand for Musharaff anyway.
Please share your list of quotes. I personally have seen and heard nobody saying anything about there being no WMDs back in 1998-2003.

Heorhij

4th January 2008, 12:14 AM

Please share your list of quotes. I personally have seen and heard nobody saying anything about there being no WMDs back in 1998-2003.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2007/09/06/bush_wmd/

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1166479.ece

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11927856/

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=3&art_id=qw1075852801225B262&set_id=1