DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on December 27, 2007, 11:46:54 AM
-
Bhutto dies in suicide attack
FORMER Pakistani leader Benazir Bhutto has been killed in a gun and bomb attack.
At least 20 people were killed when the bomber struck after opposition leader Mrs Bhutto addressed a political rally, witnesses said.
It has been reported that Mrs Bhutto was shot in the neck and the chest before the bomber blew himself up.
Wasif Ali Khan, a member of Bhutto?s party who was at Rawalpindi General hospital, said Mrs Bhutto died at 6.16pm Pakistani time (1.16pm GMT)
Horror ... people remove bodies from the site of the explosion in Rawalpindi
Babar Awan, Bhutto?s lawyer, said: ?The surgeons confirmed that she has been martyred.?
A witness at the scene of the attack said he heard two shots moments before the blast.
?As party leaders, including Bhutto, started coming out a man tried to go close to them and then he fired some shots and blew himself up,? said a police officer, at the scene.
Foreign Secretary David Miliband today described the killing of Benazir Bhutto as a ?senseless attack?.
The death of the charismatic former prime minister threw the campaign for the January 8 election into chaos and created fears of mass protests and an eruption of violence across the volatile south Asian nation.
Next to President Pervez Musharraf, Bhutto, 54, was the best known political figure in the country, serving two terms as prime minister between 1988 and 1996.
The United States condemned the attack.
A US State Department official said: ?The attack shows that there are still those in Pakistan trying to undermine reconciliation and democratic development in Pakistan.?
Police said about 15 people had been killed in the blast.
Earlier, party officials said Bhutto was safe.
Body parts and flesh were scattered at the back gate of the Liaqat Bagh park, in Rawalpindi, where Bhutto had spoken.
Police official Abdul Karim had said Bhutto had already left the area in her vehicle when the blast went off, just minutes after her speech to thousands of supporters.
Another police official, Saud Aziz, said it was a suicide attack.
The road outside was stained with blood. People screamed for ambulances. Others gave water to the wounded lying in the street.
The clothing of some of the victims was shredded and people put party flags over their bodies.
Bhutto became the first female prime minister in the Muslim world when she was elected in 1988 at the age of 35.
She was deposed in 1990, re-elected in 1993, and ousted again in 1996 amid charges of corruption and mismanagement.
She said the charges were politically motivated but in 1999 chose to stay in exile rather than face them.
The United States has for months been encouraging President Pervez Musharraf to reach some kind of political accommodation with the opposition, particularly Bhutto, a former prime minister who is seen as having a wide base of support in the Southwest Asian nation.
Her party has been widely expected to do well in parliamentary elections set for next month.
Article (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article624126.ece)
-
Let's count the minutes, before those inflicted with BDS, start to imply that this is Bush's fault :-\
-
This may very well destabilize a barely-stabilized nation with nuclear weaponry. Let's see how this plays out...
-
Bhutto dies in suicide attack
This is terribly sad. I loved everything about this woman.
My entire family is mourning her in Jordan, as they knew her personally. (My father-in-law was the Jordanian Ambassador to Pakistan when she was Prime Minister.) :'(
-
What will this really mean, I wonder? Isn't this a coup for the radical fringe?
-
This may very well destabilize a barely-stabilized nation with nuclear weaponry. Let's see how this plays out...
=========================================================
Pakistan is not like the US, clearly. But it is stable in many ways the US is not.
It is an ancient civilization with a resistance to change that the US lacks.
Pakistan would be in truly bad shape if it were to nuke India. Everyone in Pakistan knows that india is huge and Pakistan is comparatively puny.
I am pretty sure we will see what happens no matter how it turns out. My guess is that the elections are likely to be postponed.
-
Think of the assassinations of Garfield or McKinley, or even Kennedy or Lincoln. The assassins' causes did not win in any of these cases, did they?
-
What will this really mean, I wonder? Isn't this a coup for the radical fringe?
Pakistan's history has been one coup after another, and in itself any coup is radical. Most recently, Musharraf overthrew the former Primer Minister Sharif.
But as Bhutto wasn't Prime Minister again, this was not a coup.
-
By "coup" I meant a "victory". Will this enbolden the radicals?
-
Perhaps this is more like the assassination of Robert F Kennedy or George Wallace, then.
-
By "coup" I meant a "victory". Will this enbolden the radicals?
=========================================
Victory?
When has an assassination ever been a victory? I would say only when it involves the overthrowing of an unpopular leader, like Louis XVI, Ceauceascu or Mussolini.
I think this is a very long way from being a victory for the assassins. The radicals will likely be oppressed as a result. I think Mussharif will cause heads to roll. He can say all sorts of nice things about Bhutto, now that she is deceased. Alvaro Obregon had Pancho Villa killed, and then built a monument to him.
-
This is horrible.
I have to say that my first thought was, who benefits? And I see Musharraf. Am I off base?
-
A Pakistani blog:
http://lahore.metblogs.com/
-
This is horrible.
I have to say that my first thought was, who benefits? And I see Musharraf. Am I off base?
That was my first thought, Lanya. But everything I am hearing and reading is saying that he would have benefitted greatly by sharing power with her, and might be damaged by her assasination.
-
By "coup" I meant a "victory". Will this enbolden the radicals?
=========================================
Victory?
When has an assassination ever been a victory?
When Yitzhak Rabin was assasinated by that little right-wing twat and the people subsequently elected the right wing nutter Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister. I'd count that as one of the most succesful political murders in history.
-
This is truly a disturbing development. Let us stop to mourn the passing of this brave and concerned leader. My thoughts turn to Sharif. Can he fill the vacuum? Is his constituency anything comparable to hers?
-
U.S. Checking al Qaeda Claim of Killing Bhutto
December 27, 2007 11:47 AM
Brian Ross, Richard Esposito & R. Schwartz Report:
Uscheckingal_mn While al Qaeda is considered by the U.S. to be a likely suspect in the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Banazir Bhutto, U.S. intelligence officials say they cannot confirm an initial claim of responsibility for the attack, supposedly from an al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan.
An obscure Italian Web site said Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, al Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, told its reporter in a phone call, "We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedeen."
It said the decision to assassinate Bhutto was made by al Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al Zawahri in October. Before joining Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, Zawahri was imprisoned in Egypt for his role in the assassination of then-Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.
Bhutto had been outspoken in her opposition to al Qaeda and had criticized the government of President Pervez Musharraf for failing to take strong action against the Islamic terrorists.
"She openly threatened al Qaeda, and she had American support," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counterterrorism adviser. "If al Qaeda could try to kill Musharraf twice, it could easily do this," he said.
Al Qaeda had claimed responsibility for the bomb attack Oct. 18 during Bhutto's homecoming rally that killed 140 people but left the former prime minister uninjured.
Senior U.S. officials say it will take several days to sort out who was responsible and that it will be "a test of credibility for the Pakistani government."
U.S. officials monitoring Internet chat rooms known to be used by Islamic militants say several claims of responsibility have been posted, although such postings are notoriously unreliable.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2007/12/us-checking-al.html
-
This is truly a disturbing development. Let us stop to mourn the passing of this brave and concerned leader. My thoughts turn to Sharif. Can he fill the vacuum? Is his constituency anything comparable to hers?
Sharif has stated that he is boycotting the January elections.
-
I had forgotten that, Henny, thanks. But as to the general question of a viable opposition, can Sharif fill the bill?
-
Benazir Bhutto followed her father into politics, and both of them died because of it - he was executed in 1979, she fell victim to an apparent suicide bomb attack.
Her two brothers also suffered violent deaths.
Like the Nehru-Gandhi family in India, the Bhuttos of Pakistan are one of the world's most famous political dynasties. Benazir's father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was prime minister of Pakistan in the early 1970s.
His government was one of the few in the 30 years following independence that was not run by the army.
Born in 1953 in the province of Sindh and educated at Harvard and Oxford, Ms Bhutto gained credibility from her father's high profile, even though she was a reluctant convert to politics.
She was twice prime minister of Pakistan, from 1988 to 1990, and from 1993 to 1996.
Stubbornness
On both occasions she was dismissed from office by the president for alleged corruption.
The dismissals typified her volatile political career, which was characterised by numerous peaks and troughs. At the height of her popularity - shortly after her first election - she was one of the most high-profile women leaders in the world.
Young and glamorous, she successfully portrayed herself as a refreshing contrast to the overwhelmingly male-dominated political establishment.
But after her second fall from power, her name came to be seen by some as synonymous with corruption and bad governance.
The determination and stubbornness for which Ms Bhutto was renowned was first seen after her father was imprisoned and charged with murder by Gen Zia ul-Haq in 1977, following a military coup. Two years later he was executed.
Ms Bhutto was imprisoned just before her father's death and spent most of her five-year jail term in solitary confinement. She described the conditions as extremely hard.
During stints out of prison for medical treatment, Ms Bhutto set up a Pakistan People's Party office in London, and began a campaign against General Zia.
She returned to Pakistan in 1986, attracting huge crowds to political rallies.
After Gen Zia died in an explosion on board his aircraft in 1988, she became one of the first democratically elected female prime ministers in an Islamic country.
Corruption charges
During both her stints in power, the role of Ms Bhutto's husband, Asif Zardari, proved highly controversial.
He played a prominent role in both her administrations, and has been accused by various Pakistani governments of stealing millions of dollars from state coffers - charges he denies, as did Ms Bhutto herself.
Many commentators argued that the downfall of Ms Bhutto's government was accelerated by the alleged greed of her husband.
None of about 18 corruption and criminal cases against Mr Zardari has been proved in court after 10 years. But he served at least eight years in jail.
He was freed on bail in 2004, amid accusations that the charges against him were weak and going nowhere.
Ms Bhutto also steadfastly denied all the corruption charges against her, which she said were politically motivated.
She faced corruption charges in at least five cases, all without a conviction, until amnestied in October 2007.
She was convicted in 1999 for failing to appear in court, but the Supreme Court later overturned that judgement.
Soon after the conviction, audiotapes of conversations between the judge and some top aides of then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif were discovered that showed that the judge had been under pressure to convict.
Ms Bhutto left Pakistan in 1999 to live abroad, but questions about her and her husband's wealth continued to dog her.
She appealed against a conviction in the Swiss courts for money-laundering.
During her years outside Pakistan, Ms Bhutto lived with her three children in Dubai, where she was joined by her husband after he was freed in 2004.
She was a regular visitor to Western capitals, delivering lectures at universities and think-tanks and meeting government officials.
Army mistrust
Ms Bhutto returned to Pakistan on 18 October 2007 after President Musharraf signed into law an ordinance granting her and others an amnesty from corruption charges.
Observers said the military regime saw her as a natural ally in its efforts to isolate religious forces and their surrogate militants.
She declined a government offer to let her party head the national government after the 2002 elections, in which the party received the largest number of votes.
In the months before her death, she had emerged again as a strong contender for power.
Some in Pakistan believe her secret talks with the military regime amounted to betrayal of democratic forces as these talks shored up President Musharraf's grip on the country.
Others said such talks indicated that the military might at long last be getting over its decades-old mistrust of Ms Bhutto and her party, and interpreted it as a good omen for democracy.
Western powers saw in her a popular leader with liberal leanings who could bring much needed legitimacy to Mr Musharraf's role in the "war against terror".
Unhappy family
Benazir Bhutto was the last remaining bearer of her late father's political legacy.
Her brother, Murtaza - who was once expected to play the role of party leader - fled to the then-communist Afghanistan after his father's fall.
From there, and various Middle Eastern capitals, he mounted a campaign against Pakistan's military government with a militant group called al-Zulfikar.
He won elections from exile in 1993 and became a provincial legislator, returning home soon afterwards, only to be shot dead under mysterious circumstances in 1996.
Benazir's other brother, Shahnawaz - also politically active but in less violent ways than Murtaza - was found dead in his French Riviera apartment in 1985.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/south_asia/2228796.stm
-
Was it that I heard that Bhutto's support was largely due to the legacy of the Bhutto name? That the opposition party's support was largely due to her father & family? And now that she's been tragically taken out of the picture, there really is no one to fill that void, be it family or next-in-line in the Party?
-
I had forgotten that, Henny, thanks. But as to the general question of a viable opposition, can Sharif fill the bill?
Domer, I'm not sure. I never followed his political career with as much interest as I did Bhutto's, but I understand that he had a great deal of popular support in elections - so much that the authenticity of the elections were questioned.
I am seeing headlines now that he is vowing to "fight Bhutto's war" against radicals. Perhaps he will ride in on the coat tails.
At any rate, it certainly would be nice to see an elected leader of Pakistan rather than ones who take power in an overthrow.
-
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Bhutto assassination could hurt US in Pakistan
--Nic Robertson, CNN Senior International Correspondent
Today's assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is a blow for democracy in Pakistan and seems likely to cement the military's grip on power for the near future.
It will likely raise very serious concerns for the Bush administration that had been working behind the scenes since last summer to encourage Benazir Bhutto to end her exile, return to Pakistan, and seek political compromise with President Musharaff.
With Bhutto now dead, and Musharaff having shocked and disappointed US diplomats and State Department officials with his recent state of emergency, it seems the US has few reliable partners left.
The immediate future for Pakistanis seems undoubtedly one of high uncertainty with suspicion for Bhutto's death variously falling on President Musharaff, the country's intelligence services, and radical Islamists.
Any hope of having free and fair parliamentary elections, as scheduled for next month, appear to have been crushed.
-
Comprehensive picture essay/story, as it went down (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=504732&in_page_id=1811&ct=5)
-
Sharif was not exactly a bastion of democracy when he was Prime Minister. He took Pakistan into a costly war with India, one which had no international support and was quickly lost. He removed the no-confidence vote from Parliament and if you know about Westminster-style political systems, that is a huge part of their checks and balances. He also initiated a ridiculous party whip amendment that passed and basically subjected MP's of political parties to vote as their leaders decreed.
Two thoughts.
1. Yes Lanya, Musharraf benefits. If he did it or if the religious fringe did it, he reaps the reward either way. Confusion, panic, and fear are the political tools of all military regimes.
2. Sirs, of course the United States' actions play a role in this event and in Pakistan in general. Saying this is not "bashing Bush" it is acknowledging the reality that this nation's actions don't take place in a vacuum. Bush and Blair pressured Musharraf to go into Waziristan and get his ass kicked. We went into Afghanistan and sent thousands of religious nutters fleeing into Pakistan. Actions have consequences, whether you're willing to admit to them or not has no relation to their existence in reality.
-
JS, I'm awed by your encyclopedic knowledge. Do you carry these facts around in your head or research as the occasion warrants?
-
Sirs, of course the United States' actions play a role in this event and in Pakistan in general. Saying this is not "bashing Bush" it is acknowledging the reality that this nation's actions don't take place in a vacuum.
Did i ever imply otherwise?? My comments and reference are specific to those who would literally "blame Bush" for this tragedy. Kinda thought that was transparently clear. Apparently not ::)
-
OH Henny.... My thoughts and prayers go out to you and your family.
Cynthia
-
Let's count the minutes, before those inflicted with BDS, start to imply that this is Bush's fault :-\
I didn't even get a chance to count the minutes till you turned it into a poltical discussion.
-
Let's count the minutes, before those inflicted with BDS, start to imply that this is Bush's fault :-\
I didn't even get a chance to count the minutes till you turned it into a poltical discussion.
How is this NOT a political issue?? The political ramifications are ENORMOUS, for not just the Middle East, but globally, as demonstrated in a majority of the posts already presented. Did I steal your thunder? Were you salivating at the idea of proposing how Bush was secretly in contact with Musharaff, and likely helped to organize this tragic event?? ::)
-
JS, I'm awed by your encyclopedic knowledge. Do you carry these facts around in your head or research as the occasion warrants?
A bit of both as the occasion merits. In this case I was lucky enough to know quite a bit about Sharif from a good friend of mine who is Pakistani. He's not very well liked in his home country, but it is an emotional time and maybe he's close enough to a democrat to count.
I was telling someone earlier that I had just read an interview with both Musharraf and Bhutto in Newsweek on a flight back home from Seattle. The interviewer asked Bhutto if she feared an assassination attempt to which she replied that she did not believe her opponent would be so brazen as she was constantly in the public eye. Sadly, she was gravely mistaken.
-
Is Benazir Bhutto a Martyer?
A Martyer for her party , or a Martyer for good government?
What is the attitude of the People there , I would be fed up to the eyes if I were a Packistani citizen , but I can't guess what expression this sort of frustration might take.
-
Let's count the minutes, before those inflicted with BDS, start to imply that this is Bush's fault :-\
I didn't even get a chance to count the minutes till you turned it into a poltical discussion.
How is this NOT a political issue?? The political ramifications are ENORMOUS, for not just the Middle East, but globally, as demonstrated in a majority of the posts already presented. Did I steal your thunder? Were you salivating at the idea of proposing how Bush was secretly in contact with Musharaff, and likely helped to organize this tragic event?? ::)
You couldn't wait to turn the discussion from the impact, the effects to an opportunity to poke those you don't like or often disagree with in the metaphorical eye.
You're really sick.
As always, I wait to see how it shakes out in the coming days. Yes, I can envision this as being to Bush's benefit in regards to the ad campaign called "war on terror" (who can't?), but I will withold any definitive accusations till I see how the world will react.
I suspect once their concept of "a decent period of mourning", Bush, his cronies, advocates and pawns (like you) will begin spinning this to their hopeful benefit and will we wind up closer to the brink of all out nuclear war than during Kennedy's October Days.
-
Let's count the minutes, before those inflicted with BDS, start to imply that this is Bush's fault :-\
I didn't even get a chance to count the minutes till you turned it into a poltical discussion.
How is this NOT a political issue?? The political ramifications are ENORMOUS, for not just the Middle East, but globally, as demonstrated in a majority of the posts already presented. Did I steal your thunder? Were you salivating at the idea of proposing how Bush was secretly in contact with Musharaff, and likely helped to organize this tragic event?? ::)
You couldn't wait to turn the discussion from the impact, the effects to an opportunity to poke those you don't like or often disagree with in the metaphorical eye.
You're really sick.
As always, I wait to see how it shakes out in the coming days. Yes, I can envision this as being to Bush's benefit in regards to the ad campaign called "war on terror" (who can't?), but I will withold any definitive accusations till I see how the world will react.
I suspect once their concept of "a decent period of mourning", Bush, his cronies, advocates and pawns (like you) will begin spinning this to their hopeful benefit and will we wind up closer to the brink of all out nuclear war than during Kennedy's October Days.
This reminds me of the headline joke,
In giant font above the fold ;
Two Women from Georgia missing!
, lower on the page in much smaller type and wthout a picture is the story .
"Mexico City suffers massive earthquake."
It seems provential to consider all events in terms of how it impacts our own locality , but it is the way that human nature works. Everything is more intersting in terms of its impact on self , kith and kin.
In this case the earthquake might continue to shake for months and impact them there, and , us here in unforseen ways.
-
How is this NOT a political issue?? The political ramifications are ENORMOUS, for not just the Middle East, but globally, as demonstrated in a majority of the posts already presented. Did I steal your thunder? Were you salivating at the idea of proposing how Bush was secretly in contact with Musharaff, and likely helped to organize this tragic event?? ::)
You couldn't wait to turn the discussion from the impact, the effects to an opportunity to poke those you don't like or often disagree with in the metaphorical eye. You're really sick.
No Brass, sick are those who blame Bush for everything, including the common cold, such as Global Warming, Militant Islam, Poverty, Homelessness, Unemployment, etc. Sick is believing that Bush and the "neocons" were really behind 911. Sick would be the idea that the government brought down the WTC. Sick would be pushing the idea of no jet hitting the Pentagon. Sick would be those who *gasp* claim religion is some delusional affliction, which begs the obvious need for treatment and "saving"
The title of the thread made it clear what my intentions for this topic were to go, which for the vast majority of posts, have provided just that. It's a tragedy with HUGE political ramifications. My small follow-up response was simply a placing down a timer as to when one of the whacked out foaming at the mouth leftists would start in that this was some Bush facilitated neo-con hit job. Everyone has been adding to the debate, while you seem to be the only one dragging it down to gutter level with this tangent. I hope it's at least making you feel better
-
When Yitzhak Rabin was assasinated by that little right-wing twat and the people subsequently elected the right wing nutter Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister. I'd count that as one of the most succesful political murders in history.
=====================================
Hmmm. You may be right about that one. But as a rule, assassinations do not benefit the assassin or his group.
Siran Sirhan did not change a thing about US policy toward Palestine when he shot RFK. Cgolzsz did not benefit the anarchists when he plugged McKinley, either.
neither Southerners nor actors benefited when Booth shot Lincoln.
-
What makes a leader/leader wanna be, stand up in the middle of a crowd where protection is weak and terror is strong? NOt blaming the victim, here. But, my gosh, why??
Why not keep safety first, as we tell our children.
I grieve that fact that a brilliant woman has been murdered today.
Crap.
-
<<She appealed against a conviction in the Swiss courts for money-laundering.>>
In the entire flow of verbiage about Benazir Bhutto, this was the only reference I saw that indicates she was ever convicted. In a Swiss court. Of money-laundering.
IMHO, that's not something to be taken lightly. She's a fucking criminal. This wasn't some kangaroo court in Teheran or Riyadh or Guantanamo Bay - - she was convicted in a Swiss court. Presumably one which provided a fair trial and all the usual safeguards. Presumably with access to the best Swiss defence counsel that money could buy.
She appealed against the conviction, fine. Legitimate so to report. But the absence of any reported resolution of the appeal - - just leaving it hanging there - - now that's pretty sleazy journalism. Indicating to me a huge bias in favour of BB on the part of the writer.
I realized today that I knew very little about Benazir Bhutto, and, more importantly, about where her support was coming from. An educated, liberal, urban elite seemed most likely. Bourgeois, westernized, secular Muslims who were equally uncomfortable with both military dictatorship and Islamic extremists. But how does it really break down? On tribal or clan lines? Regional lines? (I'm assuming that on class-war lines, all of her support is middle-class.)
BT produced a very good case for this being an al-Qaeda hit. A Musharraf-Bhutto alliance could have effectively united and strengthened the pro-Western, anti-fundamentalist posture of the government by sealing over the rift between two of its supporting interests, the militarists and the rule-of-law liberals. Eliminating BB isolates Musharraf, already marked as the U.S.'s man. It's a huge shot in the arm to the fundamentalists, who had sustained a serious setback in the massacre at the Red Mosque. In regards to the "emboldening" of these groups - - I would think "encouragement" or "morale-boosting" would be a better term than emboldening, because they're already bold enough - - it seems obvious to me that this is an enormous morale-booster. It's a kick in the ass to Musharraf, who was counting on BB to broaden his base of support and a similar kick in the ass to the U.S.A., which had hitched its own wagon to Musharraf's star. Now it's back to the drawing board for Rice, Bush and the whole unsavoury crew.
My own gut feeling is that it is speeding the day when the same kind of violent end comes to Musharraf, simply because those who plan and organize such events now have some momentum behind them. They can't help but be pumped and inspired by their latest triumph. Just as the U.S. can't help but be discouraged and despondent over it.
BTW - - with regard to the issue of assassinations not providing victories for the assassin, those of us who regard the assassination of JFK as a coup on behalf of extreme right-wing elements in the U.S. "intelligence community" or "state security apparatus," the victory was clear - - the abandonment of the Eisenhower administration's alleged commitments to the Bay of Pigs mission was avenged, the feared pull-out from Viet Nam was averted, and - - most importantly - - the country reverted to its pre-JFK traditions of utter subservience of elected officials to the so-called "secret government" or foreign-policy establishment. (Yes, domer, I've marginalized myself yet again.)
-
Let's count the minutes, before those inflicted with BDS, start to imply that this is Bush's fault
Everyone has been adding to the debate, while you seem to be the only one dragging it down to gutter level with this tangent.
Gad, you really were right earlier. Mentioning 'genius' in any connection to you, even sarcastically, was really 'way more than you were worth. And you have the unmitigated balls to whine when anyone gets snarky with you. Pathetic.
-
Well, at least H is demonstrating, once again with his painful efforts presently, what he perseveratingly was criticisng me for, way back when. There was a glimmer of effort not too long ago, that I was greatly appreciative of, but now no civil effort, no civil dialog, not any respectable attempt to facilitate anything other than personal snarks and insults, on top of whatever point he's trying to make. Way to go, H :-\
-
U.S. brokered Bhutto?s return to Pakistan
Secret diplomacy yielded deal seen as only way to save ally against terror
ANALYSIS
By Robin Wright and Glenn Kessler
The Washington Post
updated 12:06 a.m. ET Dec. 28, 2007
For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy ? and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.
It was a stunning turnaround for Bhutto, a former prime minister who was forced from power in 1996 amid corruption charges. She was suddenly visiting with top State Department officials, dining with U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and conferring with members of the National Security Council. As President Pervez Musharraf's political future began to unravel this year, Bhutto became the only politician who might help keep him in power.
"The U.S. came to understand that Bhutto was not a threat to stability but was instead the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact," said Mark Siegel, who lobbied for Bhutto in Washington and witnessed much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy.
But the diplomacy that ended abruptly with Bhutto's assassination yesterday was always an enormous gamble, according to current and former U.S. policymakers, intelligence officials and outside analysts. By entering into the legendary "Great Game" of South Asia, the United States also made its goals and allies more vulnerable ? in a country where more than 70 percent of the population already looked unfavorably upon Washington.
?U.S. policy is in tatters?
Bhutto's assassination leaves Pakistan's future ? and Musharraf's ? in doubt, some experts said. "U.S. policy is in tatters. The administration was relying on Benazir Bhutto's participation in elections to legitimate Musharraf's continued power as president," said Barnett R. Rubin of New York University. "Now Musharraf is finished."
Bhutto's assassination also demonstrates the growing power and reach of militant anti-government forces in Pakistan, which pose an existential threat to the country, said J. Alexander Thier, a former U.N. official now at the U.S. Institute for Peace. "The dangerous cocktail of forces of instability exist in Pakistan ? Talibanism, sectarianism, ethnic nationalism ? could react in dangerous and unexpected ways if things unravel further," he said.
But others insist the U.S.-orchestrated deal fundamentally altered Pakistani politics in ways that will be difficult to undo, even though Bhutto is gone. "Her return has helped crack open this political situation. It's now very fluid, which makes it uncomfortable and dangerous," said Isobel Coleman of the Council on Foreign Relations. "But the status quo before she returned was also dangerous from a U.S. perspective. Forcing some movement in the long run was in the U.S. interests."
Bhutto's assassination during a campaign stop in Rawalpindi might even work in favor of her Pakistan People's Party, with parliamentary elections due in less than two weeks, Coleman said. "From the U.S. perspective, the PPP is the best ally the U.S. has in terms of an institution in Pakistan."
Bhutto's political comeback was a long time in the works ? and uncertain for much of the past 18 months. In mid-2006, Bhutto and Musharraf started communicating through intermediaries about how they might cooperate. Assistant Secretary of State Richard A. Boucher was often an intermediary, traveling to Islamabad to speak with Musharraf and to Bhutto's homes in London and Dubai to meet with her.
Under U.S. urging, Bhutto and Musharraf met face to face in January and July in Dubai, according to U.S. officials. It was not a warm exchange, with Musharraf resisting a deal to drop corruption charges so she could return to Pakistan. He made no secret of his feelings.
In his 2006 autobiography "In the Line of Fire," Musharraf wrote that Bhutto had "twice been tried, been tested and failed, [and] had to be denied a third chance." She had not allowed her own party to become democratic, he alleged. "Benazir became her party's 'chairperson for life,' in the tradition of the old African dictators!"
A key turning point was Bhutto's three-week U.S. visit in August when she talked again to Boucher and to Khalilzad, an old friend. A former U.S. ambassador in neighboring Afghanistan, Khalilzad had long been skeptical about Musharraf and while in Kabul had disagreed with then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell over whether the Pakistani leader was being helpful in the fight against the Taliban. He also warned that Pakistani intelligence was allowing the Taliban to regroup in the border areas, U.S. officials said.
When Bhutto returned to the United States in September, Khalilzad asked for a lift on her plane from New York to Aspen, where they were both giving speeches. They spent much of the five-hour plane ride strategizing, said sources familiar with the diplomacy.
Friends say Bhutto asked for U.S. help. "She pitched the idea to the Bush administration," said Peter W. Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador and friend of Bhutto from their college at Harvard. "She had been prime minister twice and had not been able to accomplish very much because she did not have power over the most important institutions in Pakistan ? the ISI [intelligence agency], the military and the nuclear establishment," he said.
"Without controlling those, she couldn't pursue peace with India, go after extremists or transfer funds from the military to social programs," Galbraith said. "Cohabitation with Musharraf made sense because he had control over the three institutions that she never did. This was the one way to accomplish something and create a moderate center."
The turning point to get Musharraf on board was a September trip by Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte to Islamabad. "He basically delivered a message to Musharraf that we would stand by him, but he needed a democratic facade on the government, and we thought Benazir was the right choice for that face," said Bruce Riedel, former CIA and national security council staffer now at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.
"Musharraf still detested her and he came around reluctantly as he began to recognize this fall that his position was untenable," Riedel said. The Pakistani leader had two choices: Bhutto or former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, who Musharraf had overthrown in a 1999 military coup. "Musharraf took what he thought was the lesser of two evils," Riedel said.
Many career foreign policy officials were skeptical of the U.S. plan. "There were many inside the administration, at the State and Defense Departments and in intelligence, who thought this was a bad idea from the beginning because the prospects that the two could work together to run the country effectively were nil," said Riedel.
As part of the deal, Bhutto's party agreed not to protest against Musharraf's reelection in September to his third term. In return, Musharraf agreed to lift the corruption charges against Bhutto. But Bhutto sought one particular guarantee ? that Washington would ensure Musharraf followed through on free and fair elections producing a civilian government.
Rice, who became engaged in the final stages of brokering a deal, called Bhutto in Dubai and pledged that Washington would see the process through, according to Siegel. A week later, on Oct. 18, Bhutto returned.
Ten weeks later, she was dead.
Xenia Dormandy, former National Security Council expert on South Asia now at Harvard University's Belfer Center, said U.S. meddling is not to blame for Bhutto's death. "It is very clear the United States encouraged" an agreement, she said, "but U.S. policy is in no way responsible for what happened. I don't think we could have played it differently."
U.S. policy ? and the commitment to Musharraf ? remains unchanged. In a statement yesterday, Rice appealed to Pakistanis to remain calm and to continue seeking to build a "moderate" democracy.
"I don't think it would do any justice to her memory to have an election postponed or canceled simply as a result of this tragic incident," State Department spokesman Tom Casey told reporters. "The only people that win through such a course of action are the people who perpetrated this attack."
Staff writer Thomas E. Ricks and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.
? 2007 The Washington Post Company
-
About the people who win: have you heard of disaster capitalism?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050502/klein
-
About the people who win: have you heard of disaster capitalism?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050502/klein
No, I hadn't heard of this , but it sounds like an excellent idea.
This response team should be made ready and Al Quieda should be made aware of it!
Frustrateing their plans to cause chaos and rebuild a Caliphate from ash before they even start.
Reverseing the present sitation in which our opponents benefit from disorder.
-
This response team should be made ready and Al Quieda should be made aware of it!
Frustrateing their plans to cause chaos and rebuild a Caliphate from ash before they even start.
Reverseing the present sitation in which our opponents benefit from disorder.
==================================================================
Al Qaeda has zero chance of building a "Caliphate" anywhere. They are a force of reaction and have little or no popular support anywhere. Afghanistan was their best chance, and they have lost that. If the Taliban gets back in charge, it will be due to monumental US-NATO joint incompetence.
But Al Qaeda does not respond to reason. They are fanatics, just like the Christian Fundies that insist that all Jews will return to Israel, the Third Temple will be rebuilt (that would be on the site of the Dome of the Rock-How likely is THAT?), and then Armageddon will come and Jesus will rule over a peaceful world (after disposing of all those he dislikes).
All the Jews. All is a word that NEVER happens, anywhere, ever.
The chance that all the Jews wil ever return to Israel is the same as all the Irish returning to Eire. Never gonna happen.
And yet, tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people are sure about this. The same is true for the Al Qaeda fanatics. The thing is, such people are not capable of logical thought. This is a "matter of faith", meaning their logic switches are in the OFF position.
The good old days were not so good, but they will never return.
-
<<For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy ? and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.
<<It was a stunning turnaround for Bhutto, a former prime minister who was forced from power in 1996 amid corruption charges. She was suddenly visiting with top State Department officials, dining with U.N. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and conferring with members of the National Security Council. As President Pervez Musharraf's political future began to unravel this year, Bhutto became the only politician who might help keep him in power.
<<"The U.S. came to understand that Bhutto was not a threat to stability but was instead the only possible way that we could guarantee stability and keep the presidency of Musharraf intact," said Mark Siegel, who lobbied for Bhutto in Washington and witnessed much of the behind-the-scenes diplomacy.>>
THERE ya go.
Excellent article, Henny. Once again (anyone remember Ahmed Chalabi? anyone? anyone?) the U.S. bets its wad on a crooked politician to foist a puppet government on a country it needs in its war for oil (a.k.a. the war on "terrorism") but the bet doesn't turn out all that well. In this case, failing even more spectacularly than the Chalabi bet.
The pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit together very quickly. Yesterday, I was kinda mystified by the whole thing. Given the amount of backing she had been receiving from the Bush admin and the MSM, I had begun to smell a rat, but it was more along the lines of "the pragmatists in the U.S. ruling class are winning over the ideologues in the Bush administration."
I always liked Benazir Bhutto. She was a very attractive, courageous (within reasonable limits) woman, fighting for a place in a very dangerous man's world, articulate ind intelligent. What's not to like? Whenever she was ousted for "corruption," the details of the charges against her were almost never mentioned, and the fact that the charges emanated from, or worked to the direct benefit of, a miltary regime, played directly into all my deepest ingrown prejudices - - military dictatorship BAD, attractive, smart, courageous woman GOOD, and I think the matter was always very cleverly presented in the Western press so that nobody (except the Pakistanis I knew at the time) took the corruption charges as anything very serious, for those same reasons.
I'm still not convinced on the corruption thing - - if the Pakistani governments of the day had a solid case, how come they never managed to prove it in a Pakistani court of law? OTOH, we all know how hard it is to prove corruption cases in court - - the Pakistani courts operate more or less on the same principles as our own, including the presumption of innocence and the prosecutor's burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt - - and the family undoubtedly enjoyed widespread popularity. Also, Pakistan being an extremely violent country, who's to say how many potential government witnesses have fallen victim to the "random" violence there without inciting the interest of the Western MSM? But the conviction in a Swiss court (for money laundering) puts the whole corruption thing in a new light. As do the American MSM's heroic efforts to keep this interesting little factoid (the conviction) out of the limelight.
All things considered, I'd say that al Qaeda (or like-minded groups of fundamentalist nutjobs) are the likeliest suspects to date, with or without the compliance (turning heads the other way) of the current military government. But here's another possibility to consider - - WHAT IF Benazir Bhutto were in fact the incorruptible, selfless, dedicated leader of the people that her MSM image portrays? What if, in recent days, she had made it clear to her American backers that she was nobody's puppet, that she was going to act in the best interests of Pakistanis and the Muslim world generally as SHE perceived them to be, and not as Cheney, Bush, Rice and the rest of that nefarious crew claimed them to be? At some point, might not the realization have dawned upon them that their new "asset" was no asset at all, rather a roadblock in their quest for dominance in the region, an "asset" whose time for liquidation had finally arrived?
-
I suppose that whether Bhutto would have managed to fulfill the goals of the US State Dept. as a valid loyal opposition in Pakistan depends on what those goals were. The main goal I imagine is to keep the Paki fundies in line and out of Afghanistan, and to not start a war with India. Secondary goals would be a source for cheap labor, whatever minerals Pakistan might export, and support for US policies in the Muslim world.
A corruptible politician is Washington's favorite kind, and one with popular support that is also easily bribed is best of all.
-
>>A corruptible politician is Washington's favorite kind, and one with popular support that is also easily bribed is best of all.<<
Spoken like a true patriot.
-
How is this NOT a political issue?? The political ramifications are ENORMOUS, for not just the Middle East, but globally, as demonstrated in a majority of the posts already presented. Did I steal your thunder? Were you salivating at the idea of proposing how Bush was secretly in contact with Musharaff, and likely helped to organize this tragic event?? ::)
You couldn't wait to turn the discussion from the impact, the effects to an opportunity to poke those you don't like or often disagree with in the metaphorical eye. You're really sick.
No Brass, sick are those who blame Bush for everything, including the common cold, such as Global Warming, Militant Islam, Poverty, Homelessness, Unemployment, etc. Sick is believing that Bush and the "neocons" were really behind 911. Sick would be the idea that the government brought down the WTC. Sick would be pushing the idea of no jet hitting the Pentagon. Sick would be those who *gasp* claim religion is some delusional affliction, which begs the obvious need for treatment and "saving"
The title of the thread made it clear what my intentions for this topic were to go, which for the vast majority of posts, have provided just that. It's a tragedy with HUGE political ramifications. My small follow-up response was simply a placing down a timer as to when one of the whacked out foaming at the mouth leftists would start in that this was some Bush facilitated neo-con hit job. Everyone has been adding to the debate, while you seem to be the only one dragging it down to gutter level with this tangent. I hope it's at least making you feel better
See. You're just hacking on me.
-
The problem I have, and I also liked Bhutto as well, is this - what the hell business was it of ours? We have never been good at understanding the internal wranglings of other nations.
It all leads back to imperial projection of power in Southwest Asia, but to what ends?
-
<<It all leads back to imperial projection of power in Southwest Asia, but to what ends?>>
Different ends. One truly in Amerikkka's interests (securing energy in the face of a looming supply crisis) and one not - - securing Amerikkka against Muslim anger stoked by its ongoing support of Israel.
Then you have secondary goals related to great-power prestige. A country like Amerikkka cannot be slapped across the face with impunity, either in Manhattan or Baghdad, because a large part of Amerikkka's strength resides in the ability to intimidate smaller, weaker nations. If they are seen to be impotent punks, the weapon of intimidation is gone, and the only recourse is actual war, a burden which the U.S. cannot bear much longer. Constant wars from Vietnam to date continue to erode the Treasury and inevitably lead to a devalued currency. They NEED a victory desperately, but the paradox is, the longer they have to fight for it against such clearly weaker enemies, the less impressive it ultimately seems.
-
>>The problem I have, and I also liked Bhutto as well, is this - what the hell business was it of ours?<<
We certainly should make it our business to ensure that a nation which possesses nuclear weapons does not fall into the bloody hands of jihadist elements of Islam. Not to do so would be monumentally stupid.
-
You couldn't wait to turn the discussion from the impact, the effects to an opportunity to poke those you don't like or often disagree with in the metaphorical eye. You're really sick.
No Brass, sick are those who blame Bush for everything, including the common cold, such as Global Warming, Militant Islam, Poverty, Homelessness, Unemployment, etc. Sick is believing that Bush and the "neocons" were really behind 911. Sick would be the idea that the government brought down the WTC. Sick would be pushing the idea of no jet hitting the Pentagon. Sick would be those who *gasp* claim religion is some delusional affliction, which begs the obvious need for treatment and "saving"
The title of the thread made it clear what my intentions for this topic were to go, which for the vast majority of posts, have provided just that. It's a tragedy with HUGE political ramifications. My small follow-up response was simply a placing down a timer as to when one of the whacked out foaming at the mouth leftists would start in that this was some Bush facilitated neo-con hit job. Everyone has been adding to the debate, while you seem to be the only one dragging it down to gutter level with this tangent. I hope it's at least making you feel better
See. You're just hacking on me.
See, you're just perpetuating the same irrelevent dren. Nothing to do with the topic, and everything to do with poor misunderstood Brass. Last time I checked, you're the one that initiated this current aimless tangent, so you can stop trying to play the victim card
-
Pak govt reveals how Benazir was killed
Friday December 28, 08:26 PM
http://in.news.yahoo.com/071228/211/6oyrl.html
New Delhi: Mystery shrouds the death of former Pakistan prime minister Benazir Bhutto. In an explosive revelation, Pakistan's Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz on Friday said that Bhutto did not die of bullet wounds.
Nawaz said that Bhutto died from a head injury. At least seven doctors from the Rawalpindi General Hospital ? where the leader was rushed immediately after the attack ? say there were no bullet marks on Bhutto's body.
The doctors have submitted a report to the Pakistan government in which they say that no post-mortem was performed on Bhutto?s body and they had not received any instructions to perform one.
?The report says she had head injuries ? an irregular patch ? and the X-ray doesn?t show any bullet in the head. So it was probably the shrapnel or any other thing has struck her in her said. That damaged her brain, causing it to ooze and her death. The report categorically ssyas there?s no wound other than that,? Nawaz told a Pakistani news channel.
Government sources say there will be an investigation to determine why no autopsy was conducted.
According to agency reports doctors at the Rawalpindi General Hospital tried desperately for 41 minutes to revive former prime minister Bhutto after she was shot but failed in their efforts.
Bhutto was declared dead 41 minutes after she was brought the hospital's emergency department at 1735 hrs (local time) (1805 hrs IST) with open wounds on her left temporal bone from which "brain matter was exuding", the report said.
It said Bhutto was not breathing at the time and her pulse and blood pressure "were not recordable".
IANS adds: According to the report, "immediate resuscitation (process) was started" and she was taken to the operation theatre where she was attended by a team of doctors headed by Musaddiq Khan, principal of the Rawalpindi Medical College, Dawn reported Friday.
"Left antrolateral thoracotomy for open cardiac massage was performed," the hospital report said, adding: "In spite of all the possible measures she could not be revived and (was) declared dead at 1816 hrs IST (6.16 p.m.)."
An autopsy was not carried out at the hospital "because the district administration and police had not requested the hospital authorities (for this)", the report said.
Bhutto was shot not far from where Pakistan's first prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan was killed by an assassin's bullet on Oct 16, 1951.
-
<<It all leads back to imperial projection of power in Southwest Asia, but to what ends?>>
Different ends. One truly in Amerikkka's interests (securing energy in the face of a looming supply crisis) and one not - - securing Amerikkka against Muslim anger stoked by its ongoing support of Israel.
Then you have secondary goals related to great-power prestige. A country like Amerikkka cannot be slapped across the face with impunity, either in Manhattan or Baghdad, because a large part of Amerikkka's strength resides in the ability to intimidate smaller, weaker nations. If they are seen to be impotent punks, the weapon of intimidation is gone, and the only recourse is actual war, a burden which the U.S. cannot bear much longer. Constant wars from Vietnam to date continue to erode the Treasury and inevitably lead to a devalued currency. They NEED a victory desperately, but the paradox is, the longer they have to fight for it against such clearly weaker enemies, the less impressive it ultimately seems.
I think that much of what you say is accurate.
It was easier during the Cold War as imperialism could always be sold as a part of a false dichotomy between the "great good" versus the "great evil." The Soviets played the same game, actually they sold their empire as anti-imperialism - a crafty twist. We sold our empire as democratic and good, when in reality we were generally far from either one.
Yet today it is a much more difficult sell. With the exception of Israel, whom people seem to be willing to give carte blanche, the other nations of the world aren't as willing to chip in for right-wing death squads in Latin America or rigging elections in Africa and Asia. They may not stop us from doing it, yet, but as you imply - we are losing that shiny patina we once had.
-
Pak govt reveals how Benazir was killed
From what I understand now, from CNN, they are saying she was neither shot nor hit by shrapnel, but bumped her head ducking back into her car and fractured her skull.
Kinda like the Bush administration, the story keeps changing...
-
Pak govt reveals how Benazir was killed
From what I understand now, from CNN, they are saying she was neither shot nor hit by shrapnel, but bumped her head ducking back into her car and fractured her skull. Kinda like the Bush administration, the story keeps changing...
Which of course, that bogus Bush bashing accusation has been demonstrated to be a falsehood as well. More on topic, I heard on the radio this AM, that she may have died from a cardiac arrest. They weren't deying she was shot or hit from shrapnel, only that she may have not died from such. That the actual COD may have indeed been a cardiac arrest, or the body going into hypovolemic shock from the trauma of .... whatever.
This is still alot of speculation, and apparently there will be no autopsy for any scientific determination as to her COD. Is this gonna be JFK all over again?
-
>>This is still alot of speculation...<<
She's already in the ground, so we may never really know. Well, other than it's Bush's fault of course.
-
Which of course, that bogus Bush bashing accusation has been demonstrated to be a falsehood as well.
Really? Any of these sound familiar:
WMD's...
Ties to Al Qaeda...
Mobile chemical weapons factory...
Shouldn't take more than six months...
Oil revenues will pay for the rebuilding...
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED...
The insurgency is in its last throes...
We need a surge...
-
Don't you know H, the WMD's were quietly shuttled to Syria by Russian special forces without anyone noticing. All of the thousands of tons of biological and chemical toxins were swiftly removed and are now secretly located in some caves in Syria.
Clearly you're not reading your daily fascist report! :P
-
Attendee at Bhutto rally: 'There was pandemonium'
By Saeed Shah | McClatchy Newspapers
* Posted on Thursday, December 27, 2007
A supporter of Benazir Bhutto mourns
B.K. Bangash / AP
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan ? It was on the drive out of the downtown park that the assassin fired the fatal bullets at Benazir Bhutto.
The election rally had been long and lackluster, but on viewing the crowd gathered at the gates of Liaquat Bagh park, Bhutto turned to her deputy, Amin Fahim, and said she wanted to wave, Fahim recounted. The sunroof was opened and she stood up.
Three to five shots were fired at her, witnesses said. She was hit in the neck and slumped back in the vehicle. Blood poured from her head, and she never regained consciousness. Moments after the shooting, there was a huge explosion to the left of the vehicle.
Witnesses said that Bhutto's bodyguards pounced on the assassin, who then blew himself up, shredding those around him. Ambulance crews collected pieces of flesh from the scene. The road turned red with pools of blood.
I was standing near the rally stage, about 30 to 40 yards away from the scene of the shooting. There was pandemonium. On hearing the shots, I started running toward the scene. Then came the explosion. I ran back a bit. I didn't see the killer, and by the time I got to the gates, Bhutto's SUV was driving to a Rawalpindi hospital. She didn't have a chance.
The assassination occurred in this garrison city housing the headquarters of the Pakistan army, an institution that has always seemed opposed to Bhutto. A couple of miles away across Rawalpindi, a previous military regime had executed her father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Pakistan's first democratically elected prime minister, in 1979, when she was 26.
Police officers had frisked the 3,000 to 4,000 people attending Thursday's rally when they entered the park, but as the speakers from Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party droned on, the police abandoned many of their posts. As she drove out through the gate, her main protection appeared to be her own bodyguards, who wore their usual white T-shirts inscribed: "Willing to die for Benazir."
Ghulam Mustafa, a witness at the scene, said he saw bodies with missing heads and limbs.
"This happens only in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan. Why not America?" he said.
Bhutto's party had complained repeatedly that the government provided her with inadequate security. She'd narrowly escaped another assassination attempt, at her homecoming parade Oct. 18 in Karachi, which left 140 dead.
At Rawalpindi General Hospital, hundreds of Bhutto supporters pushed their way in, filling the corridors, weeping and shouting. They chanted "Musharraf is a dog" and "Musharraf murderer," referring to President Pervez Musharraf.
"They killed her father. They killed her two brothers. It is a national tragedy," said Safraz Khan, a near-hysterical supporter. "She was the force to unite Pakistan."
Said a frail man in the accident and emergency ward, Saqib Hussain, tears rolling down his cheeks: "I am 70, but today I feel like an orphan."
In the streets, youths manned intersections and lit fires. They stopped traffic and smashed cars. They cut electrical wires, plunging the city into darkness. No police were visible, in the hospital or the streets. These scenes were repeated in major cities across Pakistan. In Karachi, young supporters went on a rampage, shooting randomly at passing cars.
The crowd at the hospital seemed sure that the army and Musharraf's regime ? the "establishment" ? were behind the attack. Security experts think that al Qaida and Taliban militants were the most likely perpetrators of Thursday's and October's attacks.
"GHQ (general headquarters of the army) killed her," Sardar Saleem, a former member of parliament, said at the hospital.
Fahim, the deputy leader of Bhutto's party, announced 40 days of mourning, saying simply: "We are shattered."
Bhutto embodied the Pakistan People's Party, leaving it without any other popular leaders. It was the only major liberal political force in the country, stridently opposed to religious extremism. The United States had backed Bhutto strongly as the next prime minister, a post she'd held twice before and looked likely to win again in a fair election.
Bhutto knew the risks she was taking by openly campaigning. But she'd said that she believed that most Pakistanis opposed extremism.
In a recent speech, she said: "This great land of ours is not a land of terrorists. It is not a land of militants. It is a land of laborers, who work hard to earn a living."
In her speech Thursday, she said she'd be the "leading light to tackle terrorism."
Bhutto's body was being flown to the south of the country, to her hometown of Larkana, where her father's body is buried in a giant mausoleum. Her controversial husband, Asif Zardari, and their three children flew to Rawalpindi from Dubai, where he's lived in exile. They accompanied the body to Larkana.
Liaquat Bagh, the venue for Thursday's rally, has a grim history. It was where Liaquat Ali Khan, Pakistan's first prime minister, was assassinated in 1951.
(Shah is a McClatchy special correspondent.)
McClatchy Newspapers 2007
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/23829.html
-
Which of course, that bogus Bush bashing accusation has been demonstrated to be a falsehood as well.
Really?
Yea, really. Following 911, the ties that were present, and Saddam's WMD disposition, IS the reason we went in, IN THE 1ST PLACE, AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE CASE, no "changing of stories", what-so ever. The ties were in relation to the WMD's, as were the weapons factories intel had concluded were WMD related, as was the goal of getting rid of Saddam, as was the goal of ACCOMPLISHING said MISSION. The spin that the anti-war and Anti-Bush crowd comes up with later, regarding "changing reasons" are simply why we're still there. But why we went in has NEVER changed. Did I mention, never?
-
>>But why we went in has NEVER changed. Did I mention, never?<<
Why waste your time sirs. These people can no longer tell the difference between a lie and the truth. It's one of the symptoms of advanced BDS.
-
Did I say using WMD's, et al for the excuse to invade? I did not.
The administration did say there were WMD's, ties to Al Qaeda, mobile chemical weapons factories, buying yellowcake from Nigeria (well, I didn't mention that one the first time around, but still...), et al, all of which have been refuted. As have the others I mentioned, up to the surge, and that remains to be seen yet.
-
I guess I "waste my time" Rich, because the optimist in me, says there are objective open minded folks out there, who may not post, but read these responses, and it's them that hopefully some deductive reasoning & logical common sense will follow their readings of these posts
Speaking of which, Merry Christmas to Miss Kim & Miss De, where ever they are. I pray they're doing well 8)
-
Did I say using WMD's, et al for the excuse to invade? I did not. The administration did say there were WMD's, ties to Al Qaeda, mobile chemical weapons factories, buying yellowcake from Nigeria et al, all of which have been refuted.
Yea, and?? The INTEL said they did, with current British INTEL also continuing to support what Saddam was TRYING to do in obtaining yellowcake. Following 911, and the intel we had, it would have been egregiously irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into both Afghanistan & Iraq.
The point being that the WHY we went in has NEVER changed, unlike the continued efforts you and like minds keep falsely implying otherwise
-
ea, and?? The INTEL said they did, with current British INTEL also continuing to support what Saddam was TRYING to do in obtaining yellowcake. Following 911, and the intel we had, it would have been egregiously irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into both Afghanistan & Iraq.
The point being that the WHY we went in has NEVER changed, unlike the continued efforts you and like minds keep falsely implying otherwise
=============================================
9-q11 had absolute;ly NOTHING to do with Iraq. No Iraqis were involved in any way with 9-11.
Invading Iraq was the most boneheaded thing any US president has done, ever.
-
>>I guess I "waste my time" Rich, because the optimist in me, says there are objective open minded folks out there, who may not post, but read these responses, and it's them that hopefully some deductive reasoning & logical common sense will follow their readings of these posts<<
Feel free to dream.
-
Following 911, and the intel we had, it would have been egregiously irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into both Afghanistan & Iraq.
It would have been irresponsible not to have invaded another country?
-
Following 911, and the intel we had, it would have been egregiously irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into both Afghanistan & Iraq.
It would have been irresponsible not to have invaded another country?
It would have been irresponsible not to deal with the grave potential of terrorists getting their hands on the WMD of a country who had ties with terrorists (so said the global intel). When it got the point that the country's leader was not going to fully and completely abide by UN 1441, THEN, the last choice left, when all other diplomatic options failed, was to invade. Sorry if that wasn't made more obvious
-
ea, and?? The INTEL said they did, with current British INTEL also continuing to support what Saddam was TRYING to do in obtaining yellowcake. Following 911, and the intel we had, it would have been egregiously irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into both Afghanistan & Iraq.
The point being that the WHY we went in has NEVER changed, unlike the continued efforts you and like minds keep falsely implying otherwise
=============================================
9-q11 had absolute;ly NOTHING to do with Iraq. No Iraqis were involved in any way with 9-11.
Invading Iraq was the most boneheaded thing any US president has done, ever.
Do you really beleive that absent an attack like 9-11 there would have been political will to depose Saddam Hussein?
-
Following 911, and the intel we had, it would have been egregiously irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into both Afghanistan & Iraq.
It would have been irresponsible not to have invaded another country?
It would have been irresponsible not to deal with the grave potential of terrorists getting their hands on the WMD of a country who had ties with terrorists (so said the global intel). When it got the point that the country's leader was not going to fully and completely abide by UN 1441, THEN, the last choice left, when all other diplomatic options failed, was to invade. Sorry if that wasn't made more obvious
The ties of Iraq to terrorists were very weak. As I recall Cheney tried to make that a strong point in selling the war, but it wasn't all that convincing.
Question, and a sincere one, if WMD were a major potential threat, why weren't our ground troops prepared for NBC combat during the invasion?
-
The ties of Iraq to terrorists were very weak.
That's 1 opinion, that I obviously don't share
As I recall Cheney tried to make that a strong point in selling the war, but it wasn't all that convincing.
Again, if it's being taken in by someone(s) who's already predisposed to either this administration not being up front, not being ethical, not being truthful, that war should not have even been considered, then it's no wonder said "selling" wasn't going to be very convincing to folks like yourself
Question, and a sincere one, if WMD were a major potential threat, why weren't our ground troops prepared for NBC combat during the invasion?
NBC? Prepared for network television? Please clarify
-
NBC = Nuclear, Biological, Chemical
Apologies for not being clear.
-
Following 911, and the intel we had, it would have been egregiously irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into both Afghanistan & Iraq.
It would have been irresponsible not to have invaded another country?
It would have been irresponsible not to deal with the grave potential of terrorists getting their hands on the WMD of a country who had ties with terrorists (so said the global intel). When it got the point that the country's leader was not going to fully and completely abide by UN 1441, THEN, the last choice left, when all other diplomatic options failed, was to invade. Sorry if that wasn't made more obvious
I'm so glad we had saner leaders (and a more educated populace evidently) in the Cold War.
USSR had lotta bombs, ya know.
-
I'm so glad we had saner leaders (and a more educated populace evidently) in the Cold War.
USSR had lotta bombs, ya know.
I think that's probably debatable Lanya.
Look at what the Soviets did in Hungary in 1956 and Prague in 1968. We cried, pissed, and moaned about it, but we attempted the same thing in Korea and Vietnam only in both cases we either had marginal success or completely failed and with a great deal more lives lost on both sides. I don't think we were any less anxious to impose our will in those days, it was just that the Soviets were lousy at public relations and we weren't a nation with a large middle class with a great deal to sacrifice for imperial ambition.
-
.
Question, and a sincere one, if WMD were a major potential threat, why weren't our ground troops prepared for NBC combat during the invasion?
Were they not?
The US Armed forces go no where without their M.O.P. gear did they make an exception for Iraq and leave it behind?
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9717&page=164
http://www.wood.army.mil/chmdsd/pdfs/Jan-June_2007/Jan-June_2007.pdf
http://mikeinmanila.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/iraqi-insurgents-using-chemical-warfarein-terror-attacks/
http://www.nbc-links.com/
Where is your roll of Plastic and case of duct tape?
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/12/070312fa_fact_coll
-
Following 911, and the intel we had, it would have been egregiously irresponsible for Bush NOT to have gone into both Afghanistan & Iraq.
It would have been irresponsible not to have invaded another country?
It would have been irresponsible not to deal with the grave potential of terrorists getting their hands on the WMD of a country who had ties with terrorists (so said the global intel). When it got the point that the country's leader was not going to fully and completely abide by UN 1441, THEN, the last choice left, when all other diplomatic options failed, was to invade. Sorry if that wasn't made more obvious
How exactly this describes the situation that was Apparent with Saddam!
Not actual perhaps , but apparent, and Saddam himself was keeping up appearences.
-
I'm so glad we had saner leaders (and a more educated populace evidently) in the Cold War.
USSR had lotta bombs, ya know.
I think that's probably debatable Lanya.
Look at what the Soviets did in Hungary in 1956 and Prague in 1968. We cried, pissed, and moaned about it, but we attempted the same thing in Korea and Vietnam only in both cases we either had marginal success or completely failed and with a great deal more lives lost on both sides. I don't think we were any less anxious to impose our will in those days, it was just that the Soviets were lousy at public relations and we weren't a nation with a large middle class with a great deal to sacrifice for imperial ambition.
I reject the equivelence of smashing the "Prague Spring" and defending the defenseless South Koreans from massacre.
-
NBC = Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Apologies for not being clear.
No apologies necessary.
How were they not prepared? Do you have some article that presents a clear situation where our troops weren't prepared for a biological or chemical attack? Last time I read, they had all the necessary gear they believed they needed, in the event that they believed there was an imminent WMD attack or if their electronic devices recorded any evidence of such
And let me point out an excellent example of a rationally minded liberal. You'll note that Js is appropriately referencing our concern of troops, in the field, being exposed to the hazards of WMD, that Saddam was supposed to have had. NOT some imminent nuclear attack on America, or completely distorted garbage like that, but an actual risk our troops would have been under, while in the immediate region. My compliments, Js. I doubt however messers Xo, Brass, or Tee will pick up on it though, but cudos anyways
-
I'm so glad we had saner leaders (and a more educated populace evidently) in the Cold War.
USSR had lotta bombs, ya know.
I think that's probably debatable Lanya.
Look at what the Soviets did in Hungary in 1956 and Prague in 1968. We cried, pissed, and moaned about it, but we attempted the same thing in Korea and Vietnam only in both cases we either had marginal success or completely failed and with a great deal more lives lost on both sides. I don't think we were any less anxious to impose our will in those days, it was just that the Soviets were lousy at public relations and we weren't a nation with a large middle class with a great deal to sacrifice for imperial ambition.
I reject the equivelence of smashing the "Prague Spring" and defending the defenseless South Koreans from massacre.
Defending the South Koreans? From what?
You mean a dictatorship? Like the one that existed there until the early 90's!! LOL
Or perhaps Vietnam is more your flavor. I mean Diem was surely much more moral and democratic than Ho Chi Minh (that's sarcasm). And let's not forget how we changed Cambodia into a fine example of modern democracy for years to come.
No. We were no better than the Soviets when it came to imposing our will on other nations, though we certainly put on a good show of pretending to be.
-
NBC = Nuclear, Biological, Chemical Apologies for not being clear.
No apologies necessary.
How were they not prepared? Do you have some article that presents a clear situation where our troops weren't prepared for a biological or chemical attack? Last time I read, they had all the necessary gear they believed they needed, in the event that they believed there was an imminent WMD attack or if their electronic devices recorded any evidence of such
And let me point out an excellent example of a rationally minded liberal. You'll note that Js is appropriately referencing our concern of troops, in the field, being exposed to the hazards of WMD, that Saddam was supposed to have had. NOT some imminent nuclear attack on America, or completely distorted garbage like that, but an actual risk our troops would have been under, while in the immediate region. My compliments, Js. I doubt however messers Xo, Brass, or Tee will pick up on it though, but cudos anyways
Actually, Plane is right. The troops were mostly outfitted with NBC gear. I was wrong.
-
It would have been irresponsible not to deal with the grave potential of terrorists getting their hands on the WMD of a country who had ties with terrorists (so said the global intel). When it got the point that the country's leader was not going to fully and completely abide by UN 1441, THEN, the last choice left, when all other diplomatic options failed, was to invade. Sorry if that wasn't made more obvious
I'm so glad we had saner leaders (and a more educated populace evidently) in the Cold War. USSR had lotta bombs, ya know.
Not sure where you're trying to go with that lanya. You looking to advocate mass retaliation of nukes that Russia did have? You ACTUALLY think Bush would have invaded Russia, during the cold war, who had an arsenal of nukes?? REALLY? ::)
-
Actually, Plane is right. The troops were mostly outfitted with NBC gear. I was wrong.
No problemmo
-
Let's not forget the rest in your haste to dismiss the 'excuses' for the war...
Shouldn't take more than six months...
Oil revenues will pay for the rebuilding...
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED...
The insurgency is in its last throes...
We need a surge...
-
Let's not forget the rest in your haste to dismiss the 'excuses' for the war...
Let's address these misguided attempts to imply a "changing of stories", and excuses shall we, since most of them have nothing to do with the reasons we went in = 'excuses'.
Shouldn't take more than six months...
Optimistic thinking that was not realistic. It's one of the legitimate criticisms that can be leveled at some in the Dept of Defense. Doesn't change why we went in, or Bush repetatvely reminding us that this will take quite some time, to bring stability & democracy to Iraq. Perhaps generational even.
Oil revenues will pay for the rebuilding...
That is still a valid goal. Not sure what your point is here
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED...
One of the most pathetically used accusatory distortions. TIMELINE. Saddam was taken out, mission accomplished. Only morons would believe that the fall of Saddam and the taking out of his regime meant everything was completed. It has always meant, what it clearly means, the mission of taking down Saddam was accomplished. THOSE major military functions had come to an end.
The insurgency is in its last throes...
See 1st response. Still doesn't change why we went in
We need a surge...
I didn't think we did. I was wrong. It's obviously working
-
<<You'll note that Js is appropriately referencing our concern of troops, in the field, being exposed to the hazards of WMD, that Saddam was supposed to have had. >>
Oh, I see. So NOW the "reason" for invading Iraq was not to forestall a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on Amerikkka, but to prevent WMD attacks on Amerikkkan troops invading Iraq. More logical minds might have figured out that the best way to protect American troops invading Iraq from Iraqi WMD would have been simply not to invade Iraq. But the Republican brain sees PAST that simple notion: we are invading Iraq because Saddam has WMD which might be used against our troops in the field if they invade Iraq. Yes. Thank you for straightening that out for us, sirs.
<< NOT some imminent nuclear attack on America, or completely distorted garbage like that . . . >>
You mean, "We can't wait till the smoking gun becomes a mushroom cloud?" THAT kind of distorted garbage?
<< . . . but an actual risk our troops would have been under, while in the immediate region. >>
Uhh, exactly what were your troops "in the region" for in the first place, if not to invade Iraq? (Just askin)
<<I doubt however messers Xo, Brass, or Tee will pick up on it though . . . >>
Oh, I picked up on it alright. It's - - uhh - - very different. And special.
-
<<You'll note that Js is appropriately referencing our concern of troops, in the field, being exposed to the hazards of WMD, that Saddam was supposed to have had. >>
Oh, I see. So NOW the "reason" for invading Iraq was not to forestall a nuclear, biological or chemical attack on Amerikkka, but to prevent WMD attacks on Amerikkkan troops invading Iraq.
Not even worth a response, since that was never said or even implied
-
Sorry, but I did try to make sense out of your remarks, and the interpretation I came up with, illogical as it seemed, was the only one I could find. Want to try again to make your point?
-
It will prove interesting after January 2008 to see the justification/rationale occuring here time and time again by the Left for anything and everything Billary does. :o
I can't wait...
-
<<It will prove interesting after January 2008 to see the justification/rationale occuring here time and time again by the Left for anything and everything Billary does.>>
You just don't get that "the left" does not hold Bill and Hillary in any particularly high regard. I consider myself a pretty far-left leftist, and believe me, there will be no sense of victory on my part if Hillary is elected President. Frankly, she's a sold-out whore for the Israel lobby and as someone who (unlike Obama) voted initially to back the war on Iraq, she's just as guilty as Bush is for the consequences of that vote. The only "leftist" candidate that I'd support is Dennis Kucinich, and of course he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell.
-
Sorry, but I did try to make sense out of your remarks, and the interpretation I came up with, illogical as it seemed, was the only one I could find.
No, what you did, is what you frequently do, completely distort someone's remarks, to fit your own predisposed mindset of what someone really meant to say.
Want to try again to make your point?
It was already made crystal clear for those with an ounce of ojective reasoning skills. The fact you're not even in the same ballpark, pretty much demonstrates precisely my above point
-
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3291600.ece
Excerpt:
[....]
So let's run through this logic in the way that Inspector Ian Blair might have done in his policeman's notebook before he became the top cop in London.
Question: Who forced Benazir Bhutto to stay in London and tried to prevent her return to Pakistan? Answer: General Musharraf.
Question: Who ordered the arrest of thousands of Benazir's supporters this month? Answer: General Musharraf.
Question: Who placed Benazir under temporary house arrest this month? Answer: General Musharraf.
Question: Who declared martial law this month? Answer General Musharraf.
Question: who killed Benazir Bhutto?
Er. Yes. Well quite.
[....]
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article3291600.ece
-
Where was the pressure on General Musharraf coming from?
Who pardoned Bhutto, allowing her back into the country.
How does Musharraf gain by Bhutto's death?
-
Still doesn't change why we went in
And despite your strenuous objections, they still do not change the fact that I am not saying this is why we went in.
You keep trying to make it about something I have not said.
Having trouble with your reading comprehension?
I said these were stories the administration gave that have changed. Not stories they gave to justify the invasion.
-
<<[My point] was already made crystal clear for those with an ounce of ojective reasoning skills. The fact you're not even in the same ballpark, pretty much demonstrates precisely my above point>>
Uh, actually, sirs, all that you've demonstrated precisely at this point is that either (1) I have accurately taken your asinine and ridiculous point the first time or (2) you are incapable of framing your point in coherent English or (3) you had no point to make.
I kind of suspect it was #1 and you are now trying to walk away from the egg that you laid because it's starting to smell bad.
-
How does Musharraf gain by Bhutto's death?
I seriously don't think he gains at all by her death. Although we may never know the entire truth of what happened, everything indicates that this will hurt him terribly.
-
Still doesn't change why we went in
And despite your strenuous objections, they still do not change the fact that I am not saying this is why we went in.
"WMD", "ties to AlQeada", etc., sure the hell appear to be about "... stories they gave to justify the invasion". And you keep referring to excuses........beg's the question excuses for what, if not to go into war?? There's no story changing here, which was your original bogus charge. Now you seem to be backtracking and trying to find areas that have been problematic post-Saddam. Show me a war that didn't have problems, that didn't require changes of strategy, tactics....rhetoric.
Having trouble with your reading comprehension?
No comprehension issues, just gathering your apparent new technique of trying to change the subject, when your original premise has been shot down.
I said these were stories the administration gave that have changed.
As I said, show me a war that didn't have changing tactics, strategy, and rationales for those changes
-
<<[My point] was already made crystal clear for those with an ounce of ojective reasoning skills. The fact you're not even in the same ballpark, pretty much demonstrates precisely my above point>>
Uh, actually, sirs, all that you've demonstrated precisely at this point is that either (1) I have accurately taken your asinine and ridiculous point the first time or (2) you are incapable of framing your point in coherent English or (3) you had no point to make.
or the actual answer 4) Tee has absolutely absolutely no intention to grasp the point made, and instead wants to repaint it in such a way that it's frellin ridicuolus. Yep. let's go with what's behind door #4
-
How does Musharraf gain by Bhutto's death?
I seriously don't think he gains at all by her death. Although we may never know the entire truth of what happened, everything indicates that this will hurt him terribly.
He might just be next!
-
<<or the actual answer 4) Tee has absolutely absolutely no intention to grasp the point made, and instead wants to repaint it in such a way that it's frellin ridicuolus. Yep. let's go with what's behind door #4>>
It's pretty clear by now that if you had a point to make, you would have already made it. Why don't you just stop embarrassing yourself further and move on?
-
<<or the actual answer 4) Tee has absolutely absolutely no intention to grasp the point made, and instead wants to repaint it in such a way that it's frellin ridicuolus. Yep. let's go with what's behind door #4>>
It's pretty clear by now that if you had a point to make, you would have already made it.
LOL....yea, that you have no intention of recognizing it, while everyone with a rational reasoning skill can. You noticed YOU'RE the only one looking for some point that's already been made, and hint it's not the ridiculous one you tried to plant. Go ahead, ask Plane, one of our staunchest rationally minded folks. I thank you for reinfocring my other point however, though :D
-
OK, sirs, it's clear to ME at least that you had no point to express except possibly what I was able to make out of your post, and I am moving on even if you are not.
Any time you want to try to explain yourself again, please feel free to make the attempt, but in the meantime, don't bullshit me further with your "It's all perfectly clear to everyone so I don't have to re-phrase it for anyone" routine, which is the clear and obvious mark of the bullshitter. You're not fooling me, so you might as well give it up.
-
OK, sirs, it's clear to ME ....
Thank you. I rest my case
-
Duck.
-
Duck as in DUCK!, Duck as in Daffy is here, or Duck as in Duck duck goose goose?
-
Duck.
...duck....goose
Your turn
-
How does Musharraf gain by Bhutto's death?
I seriously don't think he gains at all by her death. Although we may never know the entire truth of what happened, everything indicates that this will hurt him terribly.
I don't know Henny, I'm not convinced that Musharraf's hands are clean in this thing. It just doesn't smell right and you know Pakistan's military has played a huge role in their political history. He may have shed the uniform, but he's still a military man.
-
I don't know Henny, I'm not convinced that Musharraf's hands are clean in this thing. It just doesn't smell right and you know Pakistan's military has played a huge role in their political history. He may have shed the uniform, but he's still a military man.
Yet, from everything I've been reading, this hurts him terribly. The proposed power sharing would have been benificial to both, bring some stability to their country, and provide a more unified front against militant Islam, and the radical elements within their country. It also would have made his position of power much more credible. This tragedy undermines ALL of that.
-
...which was your original bogus charge.
Actually, sport, if you'll look back, my original charge was that the story coming out of Pakistan about how Bhutto died keeps changing. The mention of the changing tales of Bushco was incidental, yet like the true believer you are, you rushed right in and made that the focus of your campaign. Which, if convincing me was the aim, failed miserably.
Singlemindedness can be an asset when you are actually trying to accomplish something, but it can be a detriment when it blinds you to everything else.
I notice none of the militant groups has taken responsibility for the attack as they normally do when they can't wait for everyone to know they are able to carry out such attacks.
And this morning, the government has agreed to allow her body to be exhumed.
-
I doubt that Bush and his honchos have any major role in this. It seems to be mostly a Paki problem. That makes it no less serious. Pakistan;s problem has always been that it has little or no control over Waziristan, the unorganized territories on the Afghani border. There is also the problem of the military having way too much control of the government, and the problem of anyone attempting to benefit the poor being accused of graft and corruption. There also seems to be a graft and corruption problem pervasive throughout Paki society.
I am all for the Pakis sorting out their own problems without any help from the US, which seems pretty clueless in such exotic places, anyway. But recognizing the problems helps understand them.
-
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/30/pakistan.politics/index.html
Looks like they better get an armored car with no sun roof now!
What a state that country must be in......wow!
Interesting comment made to son by mother.
"My mother always said democracy is the best revenge."
-
...which was your original bogus charge.
Actually, sport, if you'll look back, my original charge was that the story coming out of Pakistan about how Bhutto died keeps changing. The mention of the changing tales of Bushco was incidental, yet like the true believer you are, you rushed right in and made that the focus of your campaign. Which, if convincing me was the aim, failed miserably.
Actually sport, you made a purposelful and obvious attempt to yet again lay claim to something that's been consistently demonstrated to be false....that of our supposed changing of stories to justify the war in Iraq. Your efforts in now trying to deflect and distract from that original tangent is what's really failed, since the inception of that tangent of yours, not once were you making any effort to talk about the "changing stories in Pakistan", and have spent countless responses in trying to defend your indefensible position regarding the changing stories of Bush & Iraq. In other words, you failed miserably
I notice none of the militant groups has taken responsibility for the attack as they normally do when they can't wait for everyone to know they are able to carry out such attacks. And this morning, the government has agreed to allow her body to be exhumed.
Ahhhh, the FIRST effort at actually discussing Pakistan and their changing stories. Excellent. Now we might have some substantive dialog. As I inquired earlier, I wonder if this was going to be another JFK, the way her body was quickly ushered away, minus any autopsy. Glad to see that decision was reversed
-
I don't know Henny, I'm not convinced that Musharraf's hands are clean in this thing. It just doesn't smell right and you know Pakistan's military has played a huge role in their political history. He may have shed the uniform, but he's still a military man.
Yet, from everything I've been reading, this hurts him terribly. The proposed power sharing would have been benificial to both, bring some stability to their country, and provide a more unified front against militant Islam, and the radical elements within their country. It also would have made his position of power much more credible. This tragedy undermines ALL of that.
You're making some assumptions though (not unreasonable, but not necessarily factual either). Yes, power-sharing may have been the best solution for Musharraf, but that doesn't mean either he or the military sees it that way or desires it.
Military dictatorships and military leaders rarely agree to such things easily and without bloodshed.
-
I notice none of the militant groups has taken responsibility for the attack as they normally do when they can't wait for everyone to know they are able to carry out such attacks.
This seems signifigant , the Al Quiedaere also slow to claim credit for 9-11.
Could it be that they are not certain that this successfull mission will be beneficial to them?
-
Pakistanis do not accept that Al Qaeda had anything to do with it.
They seems to hold Mussharif and the US to blame for it.
I don't think the US would hesitate to help in a useful assassination, but there is no reason why they would have a motive for killing Bhutto. She was on their side, after all. If this were not the case, she could have been offed by a stroke in Dubai or hewr plane could have fallen from the sky in a CIA plot years ago with no repercussions.
Killing here in this way now would not suit their purpose and is not their style.
-
...the FIRST effort at actually discussing Pakistan and their changing stories.
No, actually I tried it once before, until some jackass sidetracked me. Keeps pitching some crap about how innocent the Bushies are, and all that rot.
I'm immune - I had my reality shots.
-
Killing here in this way now would not suit their purpose and is not their style.
How can you be sure?
Not that I'm a conspiracy buff, or advocating that there actually was any reason the US - or the CIA, in a rogue capacity - might want to bump off Ms Bhutto, but how can you be sure, at this point, that there wasn't some deep dark secret involved that gave the US, or some misguided uberpatriot, reason to wish her dead?
Let's get Brass all fired up and see what he can come up with...
-
...the FIRST effort at actually discussing Pakistan and their changing stories.
No, actually I tried it once before, until some jackass sidetracked me.
Ahh, now I'm responsible for your inability to stay on topic. Cue the violin ::)
Keeps pitching some crap about how innocent the Bushies are, and all that rot.
Somehow you've confused me with Clinton Kool-aide drinkers, who can see no wrong in the messiah Clinton. I, on the other hand, which can be validated by many here, have frequently criticized Bush on a horde of things, including their post-Saddam efforts. Not that you're paying any attention. But I can sure see how your dander gets ruffled, when of all people, sirs, is the one demonstrating your gross inaccuracies, regarding certain Bush bashing accusations.
And look at that.......nothing about Pakistan
-
I don't know Henny, I'm not convinced that Musharraf's hands are clean in this thing. It just doesn't smell right and you know Pakistan's military has played a huge role in their political history. He may have shed the uniform, but he's still a military man.
Yet, from everything I've been reading, this hurts him terribly. The proposed power sharing would have been benificial to both, bring some stability to their country, and provide a more unified front against militant Islam, and the radical elements within their country. It also would have made his position of power much more credible. This tragedy undermines ALL of that.
You're making some assumptions though (not unreasonable, but not necessarily factual either). Yes, power-sharing may have been the best solution for Musharraf, but that doesn't mean either he or the military sees it that way or desires it.
I'm simply referring to snippets I've read & heard, Js. Not just some vague assumptive epiphany of mine.
Military dictatorships and military leaders rarely agree to such things easily and without bloodshed.
Yes, BUT, he had stepped down from his military position, and as I said, the impending election would have provided him credibility he never really had before. That's gone now, and credibility in a leader, be it military or civilian is HUGE
-
Somehow you've confused me with Clinton Kool-aide drinkers, who can see no wrong in the messiah Clinton.
(whine)
I, on the other hand, which can be validated by many here, have frequently criticized Bush on a horde of things, including their post-Saddam efforts.
And?
Not that you're paying any attention.
I've about given that up, considering your one track mind.
But I can sure see how your dander gets ruffled, when of all people, sirs..
Now that's a hoot. You're an annoyance, only mildly less irritating than some others I have come across in here. But you're moving up - looks like Rich quit.
...is the one demonstrating your gross inaccuracies
In your dreams.
And look at that.......nothing about Pakistan
I saved that for those who might actually want to discuss it, rather than head off on a rant about how Bushco did nothing wrong, blah blah blah...
-
And yet, you still find all this time to rant and complain about something you now keep claiming was never your real intention. I especially liked the part where my demonstrating your gross inaccuracies regarding "changing of stories" and my supposed hero worship of Bush & 1 track mind were all layed bare for all to see.
*laugh* in his dreams he types :D
When you're ready for me to apparently stop preventing you from focusing on Pakistan, we'll look forward to some positive material we all know you are capable of.
-
Amateur video with BBC commentary (http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7160000/newsid_7165700?redirect=7165719.stm&news=1&bbram=1&nbram=1&bbwm=1&nbwm=1&asb=1)
Worth a look.
I still think Musharraf was knee-deep in this thing. Suddenly the military can't control al-Qaeda?
???
-
"Suddenly"? When were they in complete control?
-
"Suddenly"? When were they in complete control?
Musharraf has been the leader for quite some time without being blown up, shot, or otherwise bumping his head on a car door and leading to his untimely death.
Pakistan, despite what you see on western television has been, until recently, a relatively safe country (with the exception of the very northern autonomous regions). I've known three people who have visited over the past two years, only one of whom was Pakistani and a male. Unless you travel to Waziristan or Kashmir (and if you aren't a journalist, why would you?) the rest of the country is enitrely stable.
Yet, in a small city right next to Islamabad, perhaps the most well-known Pakistani in the world gets murdered?
It is not adding up correctly.
-
I don't know the details well, and I'm fairly ignorant of Pakistan's present character as a nation, but the way I see it is that Musharraf is guilty of neglect and not necessarily complicity. I would add that Bhutto was singularly reckless; wasn't the JFK example enough of a warning, or the attempt on her life when she first returned? Whatever the politics of protection were, there were many groups with an interest in seeing Bhutto dead, but I'm not sure the Musharrafists were among them. The backlash is going to crack on their backs most visibly.
-
I might also add that she was killed in Rawalpindi, headquarters of the Pakistani Army and Air Force (also the location where her father was hanged).
(Sorry, I did not change Domer's post at all, it did something odd when I tried to add this note to mine)
-
"Suddenly"? When were they in complete control?
Musharraf has been the leader for quite some time without being blown up, shot, or otherwise bumping his head on a car door and leading to his untimely death.
Come on Js. He's also been head of the Government, akin to the President, while Bhutto was more like Obama, or Hillary if you want. And there have been attempts made. Point being his security IS going to be tighter than hers. That's just a given. And as I've already referenced, it makes no sense for him to throw away all the credibility & legitimacy, not to mention the coziness of American tax $$$, by being behind something like this. No sense at all. Now, back to my question......when did Musharraf have such control of AlQeada that they were prevented from carrying out any terrorist activity within Pakistan??
-
"Suddenly"? When were they in complete control?
Musharraf has been the leader for quite some time without being blown up, shot, or otherwise bumping his head on a car door and leading to his untimely death.
Come on Js. He's also been head of the Government, akin to the President, while Bhutto was more like Obama, or Hillary if you want. And there have been attempts made. Point being his security IS going to be tighter than hers. That's just a given. And as I've already referenced, it makes no sense for him to throw away all the credibility & legitimacy, not to mention the coziness of American tax $$$, by being behind something like this. No sense at all. Now, back to my question......when did Musharraf have such control of AlQeada that they were prevented from carrying out any terrorist activity within Pakistan??
Now wait. We're going to stop helping Pakistan fight terrorism because we don't like Musharraf's military regime? We both know that isn't true. Pakistan is far too vital. We have set things up to where we have no choice but to support whatever government springs from Islamabad to fight terrorism as well as try and secure the border with Afghanistan.
It isn't a question of "having control of al-Qaeda" it is a question of managing security. As I told you earlier, with some notable exceptions, Pakistan is a stable country (well, it was).
I also disagree with your characterization of Bhutto. She was the former head of the country. Hey, all I'm saying is that the entire situation is extremely peculiar. Musharraf was not overjoyed at her return by any means. You see it as "power sharing to build credibility." Now let me ask you, if you were a manager of a business and the company told you that they were bringing in a co-manager to boost your credibility after you've single-handedly run your division for years - you'd see that as a positive thing - right?
-
JS
I understand your point, but I still don't see how Musharraf benefits by assassinating her.
That doesn't preclude a rouge element of his armed forces, perhaps from the ISS, had a hand in it, much like a rogue element of the CIA had a hand in JFK's demise.
Perhaps this is a double coup. I don't see Musharraf surviving this, literally or figurately.
-
I see your comments as amounting to a powerful ambivalence, JS, but not necessarily an active malevolence. Without knowing expectations and capabilities of her own party's protection potential, and not knowing the complexities of the politics and personal resentments among the army who would be charged with her care, it is premature to come to a conclusion as to cause and effect. There are a lot of reasonable alternatives: from "screw them, they're on their own" to "we really can't control her political activities (we tried but were thwarted with house arrest)" to "rightfully, the tradition here is to provide your own security" to "what do you mean: we were on duty as directed but we just weren't really 'into it.'" That's why an independent investigation is so vital. You know, the truth shall set you free (but unfortunately not resurrect a reckless politician).
-
"Suddenly"? When were they in complete control?
Musharraf has been the leader for quite some time without being blown up, shot, or otherwise bumping his head on a car door and leading to his untimely death.
Come on Js. He's also been head of the Government, akin to the President, while Bhutto was more like Obama, or Hillary if you want. And there have been attempts made. Point being his security IS going to be tighter than hers. That's just a given. And as I've already referenced, it makes no sense for him to throw away all the credibility & legitimacy, not to mention the coziness of American tax $$$, by being behind something like this. No sense at all. Now, back to my question......when did Musharraf have such control of AlQeada that they were prevented from carrying out any terrorist activity within Pakistan??
Now wait. We're going to stop helping Pakistan fight terrorism because we don't like Musharraf's military regime? We both know that isn't true.
IF he's behind her assisination, you bet we will. At least, I'd advocate pull-out
It isn't a question of "having control of al-Qaeda" it is a question of managing security. As I told you earlier, with some notable exceptions, Pakistan is a stable country (well, it was).
It is a question of who is to be provided more security, if we're talking simply who's being protected. I'm not saying that security around Bhutto was the best it could have been. What I am saying, especially given the video you provided, when someone is willing to blow themselves up, those with greater security are going to be able to prevent such, than those with lesser security. The leader of a country is GOING to have more security than someone who's simply running. Right? And were there not attempts made on Musharraf??
-
Bhutto represents the people of the Punjabi and Sinhi less militant majority. The mountain people are mostly Pashtuns. Mushariff is somewhere in the middle, and the army has not done a very good job of running the country. The soldiers like weapons, and they probably piss away a lot more on unnecessary defense than the Bhuttos have ever stolen, if indeed they have stolen at all.
I did find the bit where Benazir gets to declare in her will who leads her party, and somehow we are supposed to see this as "democratic". How is heredity democratic in the least?
I suppose if I were a Paki, this might make sense.
-
IF he's behind her assisination, you bet we will. At least, I'd advocate pull-out
Sirs, that doesn't make sense. We're not in Pakistan to help them, we're in Pakistan to help because they are a critical border with Afghanistan and an important front in dealing with Al-Qaeda.
-
IF he's behind her assisination, you bet we will. At least, I'd advocate pull-out
Sirs, that doesn't make sense. We're not in Pakistan to help them, we're in Pakistan to help because they are a critical border with Afghanistan and an important front in dealing with Al-Qaeda.
We're in Pakistan because Pakistan is supposed to be an ally in dealing with AlQeada. If Pakistan is going to act like AlQeada, then we to treat them like they were Afghanistan, under the Taliban. That's what makes sense to me
-
IF he's behind her assisination, you bet we will. At least, I'd advocate pull-out
Sirs, that doesn't make sense. We're not in Pakistan to help them, we're in Pakistan to help because they are a critical border with Afghanistan and an important front in dealing with Al-Qaeda.
We're in Pakistan because Pakistan is supposed to be an ally in dealing with AlQeada. If Pakistan is going to act like AlQeada, then we to treat them like they were Afghanistan, under the Taliban. That's what makes sense to me
I don't think we gave them a lot of choices on being an ally.
But your solution is interesting.
-
We're in Pakistan because Pakistan is supposed to be an ally in dealing with AlQeada. If Pakistan is going to act like AlQeada, then we to treat them like they were Afghanistan, under the Taliban. That's what makes sense to me
I don't think we gave them a lot of choices on being an ally.
They could have said no. They could have acted defiant like Iran, Syria, and Iraq at the time, and told us to go pound sand. They did have choices
But your solution is interesting.
Well, I'm glad I posted something that was interesting ;-)
-
They could have said no. They could have acted defiant like Iran, Syria, and Iraq at the time, and told us to go pound sand. They did have choices
But to compensate for their efforts we gave them huge amounts of money. That was never offered to the others.
-
They could have said no. They could have acted defiant like Iran, Syria, and Iraq at the time, and told us to go pound sand. They did have choices
But to compensate for their efforts we gave them huge amounts of money. That was never offered to the others.
Seriously Miss Henny, you think Iran, Syria, and Iraq would have actively worked against AlQeada, as Pakistan has done, if we had presented them with $$??
-
Seriously Miss Henny, you think Iran, Syria, and Iraq would have actively worked against AlQeada, as Pakistan has done, if we had presented them with $$??
============================================
Many moot questions here. Silly questions.
Al Qaeda in Iraq during Saddam was about as big an influence as the Provo IRA or La Brigada Rossa. It wasn't any sort of problem in Iran, either, and thre Iranians government is never going to accept money from the USA for political cooperation, as the Shah did.
The US will never offer money to Syria because of Israel.
-
They could have said no. They could have acted defiant like Iran, Syria, and Iraq at the time, and told us to go pound sand. They did have choices
But to compensate for their efforts we gave them huge amounts of money. That was never offered to the others.
Seriously Miss Henny, you think Iran, Syria, and Iraq would have actively worked against AlQeada, as Pakistan has done, if we had presented them with $$??
Seriously, I do think that money lubes a lot of things.
But back to the main point - none of the countries were ever the front line in the war against Al-Qaeda, and Pakistan is.
-
Seriously Miss Henny, you think Iran, Syria, and Iraq would have actively worked against AlQeada, as Pakistan has done, if we had presented them with $$??
Seriously, I do think that money lubes a lot of things. But back to the main point - none of the countries were ever the front line in the war against Al-Qaeda, and Pakistan is.
Because, they HAVE been a staunch supporter of our efforts, and they HAVE been taking on AlQeada & militant islam. Musharraf HAS been the target of terrorist assisination attempts. That can't be said of messers Iran, Syria, or Saddam Iraq. As such, they should receive $$$ assistance......unless of course we find out that Musharraf was behind the Bhutto assasination. Then all bets are off
-
Because, they HAVE been a staunch supporter of our efforts, and they HAVE been taking on AlQeada & militant islam.
And I maintain that this is because of the financial assistance we give (note, not all is military assistance) - NOT because Musharraf is such a great friend. I believe that Pakistan's assistance was so critical that any price was going to be paid to gain it. Any attempts made on Musharraf's life as proof do not work as some "proof" that he is a friend. He took the money, he's done some of what is required of him, hence he is a target now.
-
It should also be noted that Syria HAS fought with Muslim terrorists as had Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Assad had nearly been assassinated in a bomb attack by the Muslim Brotherhood on a trip to Mali. He had survived numerous attempts on his life by Islamist militants.
The way in which the Baathist regimes dealt with terrorists was not the way we deal with them. Assad, for example, destroyed an entire town deemed sympathetic to the Islamist cause. It was a very Stalinist approach where family members and friends were considered just as guilty through association as the suspected terrorists.
Iran is different for many reasons. First, al-Qaeda is a Sunni organisation and Iran is a Shia Theocratic Republic. To the most radical fringe Sunni the Shia are as terrible as infidels (if not more so as they dare corrupt the true faith). Second, Iran is a nation that has felt the pain of being used by the United States as a Cold War pawn. It is a prime example of "blowback" if you prefer the CIA term. To think that they would aid us in combatting other Muslims to further our imperial actions in Southwest Asia is supreme arrogance. Lastly, Iraq is filled with people that Iran has sheltered from Hussein's regime for years. Despite whatever alleged negative actions Iran has taken, they've also built hospitals, schools, and consulates in Kurdish and Shi'ite areas of Iraq and Afghanistan. It rarely makes CNN or the BBC - but that isn't the point. It makes a difference for the local people and that means more support for Iran.
Let's remember that the military regime in Pakistan was never going to be a "rogue" regime anyway. Musharraf was never a radical Islamist. In fact, it was the former Prime Minister's stupid (but brief) war with India that led to his overthrow (well, it was the primary reason). Henny is correct, the money was there, Musharraf knew that the "War on Terror" absolutely required Pakistan - just like aiding the Afghanistan fighters against the Soviets required spending a fortune on Pakistan's military.
But this time Musharraf made some critical errors. One was actually taking the army into Waziristan. Another was allowing the United States to meddle in Pakistani internal affairs.
Bt and Domer made excellent points. Musharraf may very well have nothing to do with this - maybe one of his people thought he was doing him a favor? There are many possibilities. But don't mistake Pakistan's working with the west as a show that the people appreciate what we've done in their part of the world.
-
Links at the URL http://www.juancole.com/2008/01/musharrafs-watergate-physicians-coerced.html
Via Juan Cole's site
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Musharraf's Watergate?
Physicians Coerced by Military;
Nawaz: Musharraf Must Go
It looks increasingly as though someone in the military government in Pakistan may have been somehow complicit in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
An attorney for the physicians who put out the story that Ms. Bhutto died of a concussion went to CNN on Monday and said that his clients were pressured by the military. They appear not to have actually agreed with the concussion story, and felt coerced but could not speak out because they had been threatened with being fired if they did.
So what we can conclude is that elements in the Pakistani military forced government physicians to deny that Bhutto was shot. But newly surfaced videotape shows conclusively that she slumped after shots rang out; and she did not throw her head back against the sun roof lever as the physicians were coerced into maintaining.
So, why did these military elements make the physicians file a false report? About that we can only speculate. But it should be noted that lying about a crime is usually a sign of guilt. If the military was completely uninvolved, why should it care how she died?
You could construct a speculative scenario in which the shooter used a standard army issue revolver (I'm not a hardware guy, but I think that would be a .38) because he saw a target of opportunity, but that Plan A had been to detonate a belt bomb. If he used a service revolver, that would raise the question of who gave it to him and why. What if the bullet were found, say at the crime scene? If Benazir were not struck by a bullet, then the army could always maintain that it was fired by a soldier on the scene in the midst of the chaos, and was aimed at the perpetrators. But if she was killed by the army bullet, then it could not be explained away. (In fact, the bullet has not been found, but someone may have been afraid it would be).
Motive? Well, the military's suspicions of her would have been rather heightened in mid-November when she reacted heatedly to then Gen. Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency:
'?It is time for him to go. He must quit as President,? she said as police detained dozens more of her supporters on the tenth day of a state of emergency. ?There are no circumstances in which I could see myself serving with General Musharraf.? '
She later reconsidered, but there are some things you cannot take back. For instance, say you threatened a Mafia don that you would pull his guts up through his nose. Then later you said you didn't really mean it.
The government stonewalling on the issue of an autopsy and the coercion of government employees to toe a pre-determined line, smells to high heaven of complicity. It could be incompetence or stupidity, of course. And the Pakistani military is not all one thing. There is the Inter-Services Intelligence, some members of whom have long ties to Muslim militants. There is the officer corps, etc.
Three further notes: The Pakistan People's Party members and other opponents of Musharraf already were thinking like this before circumstantial evidence emerged that made it even more plausible. I fear their conviction will now be unshakeable, which does not bode well for social peace. It would be a feud.
Second, the physicians would not have had their lawyer speak out about their having been coerced by the military if they thought that Musharraf was likely to continue in office. That is, they have made a bet on a PPP prime minister and are more afraid of being punished by the new government than they are of being punished by the old one. Do they think the old one is about to be overthrown?
And, former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, head of the Muslim League (N), called Monday for Musharraf to resign, saying of him, "He is a one-man calamity and the source of all the problems. The country is burning."
Oooops?
---
PS McClatchy says Benazir was about to go public with charges that the Inter-Services Intelligence had intended to fix the elections in favor of Pervez Musharraf.
PPS A kind reader pointed out that the Pakistani military had taken over security for Benazir's appearance at Liaqat Bagh, raising questions about how a gunmen and bomber got through.
posted by Juan Cole @ 1/01/2008 06:26:00 AM
-
Sounds like a double coup to me.
-
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=114685&title=pervez-musharraf-pt.-1
Jon Stewart interviews Musharraf in 2006. I thought I remembered him saying something like he didn't have a lot of choice in the matter (of supporting the US).
-
And this is really interesting, via TPM:
Why She Died 4.0
01.01.08 -- 7:50PM
By Josh Marshall
From the Times of India ...
In a dramatic U-turn, Pakistan government has "apologised" for claiming that former premier Benazir Bhutto died of a skull fracture after hitting the sunroof of her car during a suicide attack.
Caretaker Interior Minister Hamid Nawaz Khan has asked the media and people to "forgive and ignore" comments made by his ministry's spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema which were slammed by her Pakistan People's Party as "lies" and led to an uproar at home and abroad.
The Interior Minister made the apology during a briefing for Pakistani newspaper editors on Monday.
...
The government's apparent damage control exercise on Cheema's comments made at a news conference a day after Bhutto was assassinated at Liaquat Bagh in Rawalpindi on December 27, came after TV channels aired privately shot photos and video footage which showed a gunman shooting at Bhutto.
The Pakistan People's Party leader is seen in the footage falling through the sun-roof before the suicide bomber detonated his explosives.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/062356.php
-
It should also be noted that Syria HAS fought with Muslim terrorists as had Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Assad had nearly been assassinated in a bomb attack by the Muslim Brotherhood on a trip to Mali. He had survived numerous attempts on his life by Islamist militants.
The way in which the Baathist regimes dealt with terrorists was not the way we deal with them. Assad, for example, destroyed an entire town deemed sympathetic to the Islamist cause. It was a very Stalinist approach where family members and friends were considered just as guilty through association as the suspected terrorists.
Iran is different for many reasons. First, al-Qaeda is a Sunni organisation and Iran is a Shia Theocratic Republic. To the most radical fringe Sunni the Shia are as terrible as infidels (if not more so as they dare corrupt the true faith). Second, Iran is a nation that has felt the pain of being used by the United States as a Cold War pawn. It is a prime example of "blowback" if you prefer the CIA term. To think that they would aid us in combatting other Muslims to further our imperial actions in Southwest Asia is supreme arrogance. Lastly, Iraq is filled with people that Iran has sheltered from Hussein's regime for years. Despite whatever alleged negative actions Iran has taken, they've also built hospitals, schools, and consulates in Kurdish and Shi'ite areas of Iraq and Afghanistan. It rarely makes CNN or the BBC - but that isn't the point. It makes a difference for the local people and that means more support for Iran.
Let's remember that the military regime in Pakistan was never going to be a "rogue" regime anyway. Musharraf was never a radical Islamist. In fact, it was the former Prime Minister's stupid (but brief) war with India that led to his overthrow (well, it was the primary reason). Henny is correct, the money was there, Musharraf knew that the "War on Terror" absolutely required Pakistan - just like aiding the Afghanistan fighters against the Soviets required spending a fortune on Pakistan's military.
But this time Musharraf made some critical errors. One was actually taking the army into Waziristan. Another was allowing the United States to meddle in Pakistani internal affairs.
Bt and Domer made excellent points. Musharraf may very well have nothing to do with this - maybe one of his people thought he was doing him a favor? There are many possibilities. But don't mistake Pakistan's working with the west as a show that the people appreciate what we've done in their part of the world.
Very well said JS.
-
Bt and Domer made excellent points. Musharraf may very well have nothing to do with this - maybe one of his people thought he was doing him a favor? There are many possibilities. But don't mistake Pakistan's working with the west as a show that the people appreciate what we've done in their part of the world.
Very well said JS.
And keep in mind, I never said or implied such, either
-
Bt and Domer made excellent points. Musharraf may very well have nothing to do with this - maybe one of his people thought he was doing him a favor? There are many possibilities. But don't mistake Pakistan's working with the west as a show that the people appreciate what we've done in their part of the world.
Very well said JS.
And keep in mind, I never said or implied such, either
No, but you did say this: That can't be said of messers Iran, Syria, or Saddam Iraq.
Which is not true. It implies that those nations supported al-Qaeda and militant Islam when in fact they were targets as well, with the exception of Iran who's quite different from the other two in nature and has no reason to support al-Qaeda.
-
you did say this: That can't be said of messers Iran, Syria, or Saddam Iraq.
Which is not true. It implies that those nations supported al-Qaeda and militant Islam when in fact they were targets as well, with the exception of Iran who's quite different from the other two in nature and has no reason to support al-Qaeda.
No, it implies that they support militant Islam and most, if not all, of its offshoots, incl AlQeada, Hamas, Hesbollah, etc. Not that they had to deal with their own occasional domestic issues & incursions by their version of "terroists", which your article doesn't appear to refute
-
you did say this: That can't be said of messers Iran, Syria, or Saddam Iraq.
Which is not true. It implies that those nations supported al-Qaeda and militant Islam when in fact they were targets as well, with the exception of Iran who's quite different from the other two in nature and has no reason to support al-Qaeda.
No, it implies that they support militant Islam and most, if not all, of its offshoots, incl AlQeada, Hamas, Hesbollah, etc. Not that they had to deal with their own occasional domestic issues & incursions by their version of "terroists", which your article doesn't appear to refute
Hamas and Hezbollah are political militant groups primarily confined to Israel and Lebanon. Moreover, Hezbollah is predominantly Shi'ite and represents the poor and oppressed Shia of Southern Lebanon. While they support an Iranian style Shia Theocratic Republic, they do not wish to impose one on Lebanon but instead call for an election once all colonial powers are removed from the country and once the Phalange have been tried and punished for the massacres committed against both Muslims and Christians.
It should be noted that Hezbollah is not universally seen as a terrorist organization in the international community. Yes, Iran supports Hezbollah as it supports many Shia movements in the world. Hezbollah directly believes in the principles of the Iranian revolution and theological principles of the Iranian clerics as well.
Now where and when have Syria, Iran, and Hussein's Iraq supported al-Qaeda?
By the way, saying that the Muslim Brotherhood was a "domestic issue" is interesting. I would suggest reading something on Sayyid Qutb, the founder of Qutbism. He advocated violence to bring about the proper Islamic states free of apostates and infidels. He was a major influence on people like Osama bin Laden (remember him?) and other notable Islamic militants. He was also a leading intellectual in the Muslim Brotherhood which still has political and terrorist ties in nearly all Middle Eastern nations today. It is also a major component of al-Qaeda.
It is a capital offense to be a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria. Hamas was founded by a member of the Muslim Brotherhood and is considered a wing of that organization. The Islamic Action Front, a Brotherhood political party, has the most seats in Jordan's Parliament. Iran has no Brotherhood groups of any prominence due to the Sunni nature of the group. The Brotherhood is the major political group for the Sunni in Iraq after the fall of Hussein in 2003 and they are the primary non-secular party for the Kurds (KIU). The Brotherhood has the largest political party in Bahrain (Al-Menbar). They are prominent in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. In Kuwait they have fought hard to prevent women from voting amongst other societal reforms. They have huge followings in Turkey and Egypt where they fill many prisons.
The Muslim Brotherhood also operates in Algeria, Sudan, Tunisia, Somalia, Libya, and the Maldives.
They are probably most famous for their possible role in the attempted murder of Gamel Abdul Nasser and Syrian President Assad.
-
you did say this: That can't be said of messers Iran, Syria, or Saddam Iraq.
Which is not true. It implies that those nations supported al-Qaeda and militant Islam when in fact they were targets as well, with the exception of Iran who's quite different from the other two in nature and has no reason to support al-Qaeda.
No, it implies that they support militant Islam and most, if not all, of its offshoots, incl AlQeada, Hamas, Hesbollah, etc. Not that they had to deal with their own occasional domestic issues & incursions by their version of "terrorists", which your article doesn't appear to refute
Hamas and Hezbollah are political militant groups primarily confined to Israel and Lebanon. Moreover, Hezbollah is predominantly Shi'ite and represents the poor and oppressed Shia of Southern Lebanon. While they support an Iranian style Shia Theocratic Republic......
Thank you for that concession. However they wish to advocate, if not literally facilitate such, they are an offshoot of Militant Islam. That IS the point I was making, and your effort to apply different shades of that point, doesn't refute the point. I realize there are both Shiite and Suuni factions, who really don't like each other, and it's been going on for quite a while. But what hasn't been going on, except over the last couple of decades is the rise in Islamofascism & the movement of militant Islam, as embodied by AlQeada, where Islamic law is to rule everyone, and one is either to convert, be subjugated, or die. Those are the only options to those folks. And messers Syria, Iran, Taliban's Afghanistan, and Saddam's Iraq were not having any problem with that agenda, and frequently supported such efforts with either $, logistics, training sites, and/or equipment. That doesn't mean that Suuni didn't take pot shots at Shiites, and vice versa. It means that when you stop focusing on the trees, you can actually see the forest. In this case, their consistent support of militant Islamic terrorist activities, thru-out the globe
-
But what hasn't been going on, except over the last couple of decades is the rise in Islamofascism & the movement of militant Islam, as embodied by AlQeada, where Islamic law is to rule everyone, and one is either to convert, be subjugated, or die.
Read about Qutb. He wrote about exactly that as early as the 40's. The Muslim Brotherhood preached exactly that in the 60's.
And messers Syria, Iran, Taliban's Afghanistan, and Saddam's Iraq were not having any problem with that agenda, and frequently supported such efforts with either $, logistics, training sites, and/or equipment.
Proof? It seems to me that Syria had a lot of problems with it, to the point of outlawing a party that supported it. Saddam did the same. Hezbollah does not support that agenda (which I explained above but you chose not to quote).
You lump them all into one category to avoid having to understand anything about what really goes on in the Middle East. That's not seeing the forest for the trees, that's just excusing ignorance.
-
There is no relationship between the Muslim Brotherhood and the Syrian Baathists. Hezbollah is also unrelated. The only thing that all have in common is they do not want to be dominated by the US or Israel.
-
Js --> Look at that Tree, over to the left
Sirs --> Look at that Forest