Former Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto's just been shot and blown up in Pakistan. Poor woman.
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Benazir Bhutto killed in attack
Printable View
Former Pakistani PM Benazir Bhutto's just been shot and blown up in Pakistan. Poor woman.
BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Benazir Bhutto killed in attack
shit.
Isanity. Fucking insanity. I just don't understand people sometimes.
this is a very bad thing and will have some very serious effects and implications world wide.
This is so sad coming after her attempts to return to her homeland and do right by her people. It wasn't the first attempt to assassinate her, but she was fearless in her struggle. That's a courageous woman to look up to.
Damn straightQuote:
Originally Posted by stinkyattic
I don't know where this idea that she was a leader worth admiring comes from. She is widely believed to have been one of the most corrupt and ruthless dictators not only in the history of Pakistan, but in all of Asia.
R.I.P...
Sources? She may not have been perfect, but the nastiest stuff I can find about her is some corruption allegations and supporting the Taliban back in the 80's. Shes done a lot for womens rights in Pakistan, as well as promoting democracy and all that jazz. As for her being widely believed to being the most ruthless dictator in all Asia, COMON! Are you seriously comparing corruption charges to Pol Pot killing 1/3rd of the Cambodian population or Mao's purges? Just because people think its a bad thing she died doesn't mean shes the best thing ever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
BA's sources are usually colored heavily by his distorted interpretation of things he's read in the distant past, from what I can conclude, Bongoman. He will take a nugget of information and color it heavily so that it allows him to take an opposing view here, whether that view has a foundation of accuracy or not.
The reputation as politically â??corruptâ? was always largely an allegation. Bhutto was never tried for any of those charges, which were brought against her because she represented a change and was a voice for the people. She was removed from office under charges of corruption because she opposed war lords, opposed the feudal system, supported nationalism, opposed discrimination against women, and was a secular, educated, liberal, articulate threat to the conservative status quo. The charges of financial corruption were probably largely brought to besmirch her reputation, too, but I have to admit that those are some high dollar bank accounts she and her husband had stashed around the world. Those NYTimes reports 10 years ago on the likely payoffs to her husband from a French aircraft maker definitely got my notice.
However things came out in the wash of those political and financial allegations, I think itâ??s a lot easier to allege corruption than acknowledge what a terrifying prospect she represented to that insane part of the world as a forward-thinking, change-minded, people-supporting female leader.
Not true. She was accused of these things, and more, by other governments and observers outside of her own country. Her own niece has written articles condemning her. She was taking advantage of a bad situation, and was very good at portraying herself as a martyr. As her's was the only government in the area of the Middle East that supported the Taliban, that's enough to make her an example of power-hungery scum who cared for nobody and nothing but herself.
She was known for being a puppet of the US government. STill did't deserve to get shot down in the street. They played a video where she said she wasn't afraid of the Islamic terrorists because Islamic law forbids attacking women. I think she was a little mistaken.
she was a puppet...but she was also Pakistans only real chance for true democracy.
This is bad news.
This precisely why I used the term "distorted interpretation" earlier. Because youâ??re often missing the complete story and will draw your conclusion based on only a percentage of it. Thatâ??s nothing new here, but itâ??s always a little hard to debate someone whose conclusions donâ??t factor in the concept that political positions, like world events, change over time. Same way you donâ??t factor in the larger picture on so many other issues from politics to history to children to parental responsibilities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
Early on, a lot more people than Bhutto thought the Taliban had some hope for stabilizing Afghanistan, which had been at war with Russia for so long and which those closer to the situation in the Middle East thought could be positively molded by support and influence from Pakistan and could then improve the trade situation in and out of Pakistan and all over that northeastern part of the world above them. There were plenty of senators and foreign policy experts in America who thought this exact same thing and early on, our very own government seems to have helped with funding of the madrasahs that supplied them. Support of the early Taliban was an even more common belief among European statesmen.
They were wrong, obviously. Everyone with sense soon realized the error of their ways when they saw the Talibs were abusing human rights at unprecedented rates and burgeoning with religious fundamentalists cultivated at the most extremist madrasahs in Pakistan. The early thoughts about the Taliban, however, were that it represented some hope for stability that hadn't been present before. Bhutto was certainly not alone in that belief.
She was, of course, much too intelligent, peace-supporting and progressive for the crazy Taliban that emerged and changed her position, like all the rest of intelligent civilization, when it became clear who they really were. She was quite vocal about her anti-Taliban position in recent years. She recently said she thought Musharaff was letting the Taliban resurge in Pakistan, which is something everyone working in military intelligence has known for well over three years (one of my oldest friends works in military intelligence in Pakistan and, before that, Afghanistan). I suspect her outspokenness helped fuel todayâ??s events and may have even been the leading contributor to her assassination.
this has huge implications for the entire region...................the only Muslim nation with a nuclear weapon is now in absolute chaos...............:stoned:
How much graft and corruption is acceptable?
Bhutto Clan Leaves Trail of Corruption in Pakistan.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/28/wo.../28bhutto.html
See audio interview, on the above link, with John F. Burns, Bhutto expert an author of the articles in the previous post,
regarding the death of Bhutto and the future of Pakistan. He also met with her very recently regarding her plans to return to Pakistan. Burns concedes that she may have successfully led the country into a better state of affairs if she had learned from the mistakes that she made during her previous unsuccessful terms in office.
Musharraf is a puppet installed by CIA. They disarmed the public and take away civil liberties in a coup style uprising. Us and our puppet Musharraf plan her death to avoid there being any competition in the upcoming "democratic elections".
I'm glad someone bumped this thread. I'd forgotten there was a discussion I was participating in here until I saw it again.
If you're asking me, then I believe none is acceptable. But I also know that's not a global reality. It's not a reality here in our own country (lobbyists and corporate influence on policy, regulating agencies, government), and it's even less a reality in many others, including the Middle East, where graft is a centuries-old practice in many governments or monarchies. Saudi Arabia and its House of Saud take the top prize. Spain and Italy, not just Sicily, have a long history of the same sorts of things. The very House of Windsor in England, while not indictable grafters, have long been living large off the income their duchies take from their country and from the auspices of both tax relief and the Civil List. Like I said, global reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
I don't claim Bhutto was a saint. Her dad wasn't a saint, either. I do believe she was the subject of much more controversy and implications of guilt than she'd have been if she'd been of a more traditional Islamic mindset and if she'd had a Y chromosome instead of two Xs. Whatever there is to say about her, she still represented our best hope for an ally in Pakistan, she cared about peace and human rights, and she didn't deserve to be murdered by a rabid terrorist
Yes, thank you. I'm familiar with John Burns' work back before he was reporting on the Taliban and was covering the horrors in Bosnia. His Taliban stories are part of where I got my background on what I've said in earlier posts here. I'm glad to know you've read his series, too. I'm a daily subscriber to the NYTimes, and the Sunday Times is the closest thing I practice to organized religion. That and The Dallas Morning News--so I hear one conservative voice with the larger, less conservative one--and "This Week With George Stephanopoulos"--so I get to hear what the round-table participants have to say on the week's events and look at George. Nothing goes better with Sunday tea or coffee than news and public affairs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Breukelen advocaat
Bhutto being killed doesn't worry me nearly as much as the insane reaction from the mass media, as if we need to do something. It's not our civil war, why in the world should we get involved?
End all funding to Pakistan, the money is being wasted by a dictator anyway. If we really supported democracy we never would be supporting a dictator anyway. Another valid reason to impeach our own dictator, Bush.
^^^Reason #34 that I adore the Birdie!^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by birdgirl73
it sucks she died its sad when someone dies, but she was as corrupt as the taliban, she stole some of the most money from her country and cant get in trouble cause diplomatic imunity, and she was tryin to share power with president and if she accomplished that she could have shared power for the rest of her life cause she couldnt be kicked out of head office of her party and that can be bad in my eyes.
I'm with you on diplomatic immunity and on perpetual party or political leadership once installed. I'm all for diplomats, elected officials and governments being no more immune than anyone else from anything, especially prosecution for crimes. And I'm all for term limits and a democratic process that allows party honchos and elected officials to be replaced or re-elected after a time.
corrupt or not, if she could keep a nuclear armed country from plunging into civil war I say who cares. Corruption would really only be a problem for the Pakistani people to deal with. There are a lot of corrupt countries in the world, but their corruption has little effect on foreign policy. There aren't a lot of female Arabs that are praised, her election alone could have done a lot to change the Arab world and how they look at women in general.Quote:
Originally Posted by texas grass
Doesn't it seem weird how none of the extremist websites claimed responsibility, but that is who Musharraf is blaming? I'm not a conspiracy theorist but it wouldn't surprise me if he had a connection in her death. Especially after watching the latest news video of her being shot contradicting how Musharraf is claiming she died. Doesn't look good at all for Pakistan.
Her son's taking over the party. 'Democracy is the best revenge'
her son the 19 yr old is taking over in office, and that means he can be party ruler for the rest of his life, thats not democracy
The Pakistani Government must quit lying, and begin the election process immediately. But anything is possible with radicalism and agitation at its current level in the mid-east.
Texas Grass, I think you're confusing leadership of the Pakistan People's Party with the political office she was aiming for and which her son may aim for in time: Prime Minister or elected president or, until there's reform, co-president (which was what she was campaigning for). The current president of Pakistan, Musharaff, took over his office in a coup. But the PPP wants free democratic elections.Quote:
Originally Posted by texas grass
Her son Bilawal Zardari will be the lifelong chair of the PPP, not the country of Pakistan itself. That's the same thing as if a lifelong Republican National Committee or Republican Party chairman were appointed here, not a perpetual president.
Winston Churchill once said, 'the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with any voter.'
Pakistan is an example of not only the cultural clash of East meeting West, but the economic friction of have's and have not's.
Pakistan may not be our problem right now, but if the West gets jittery about North Korea having miserable pissant nukes, what the hell are they going to do if a Talibanesque government takes over in Pakistan, a nation with over 50 nukes, as well as the means to deliver them? The West will have to interfere on national security grounds should the Pakistani government be toppled and be replaced by a bunch of mad fundamentalists. And in reference to your other post, "Arab" is not a catch all term for any Muslim, Arabs are a loose ethnic group comprised of North Africans and Arabians; you can have Christian Arabs as well as Muslim Arabs. Afghanis, Malaysians, Pakistanis etc are not Arabs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nailhead
bhutto was the ONLY democratic leader in pakistan. i don't say this now because she's dead but i've always looked up to her as the only one who could take pakistan out of this mess. i've seen the country deteriorate in the past 9 years. the divide between the rich and the poor has increased. all throughout the government offices and bureaucracy there are retired military officers. the construction contracts are all given to someone related to the military or the military's internal construction company, which i believe is called FWO. there are "invisible" schools, roads, sewerage system etc which only exist in paper. the money supplied for that is all divided amongst the 'contractors' into their pockets and the actual infrastructure never really came into existance.
and now mush has the fucking audacity to say that he's 'restored" democracy in our country. he says he's "restored" it in three phases and his first phase was the coup d'etat and the martial law that took place in october 1999. i mean has someone gotta correct his meaning for what 'democracy' really is? a military coup d'etat is his first phase for "restoring democracy". the second phase was when he promised that he would resign from his office of chief of army staff and be a civilian president after a referendum which took place in 2002. after securing his place again, as the "Presdient", he turned his back toward the people of pakistan and stayed in his uniform until oct 2007. in november 2007 he declared a state of emergency, which he call his third phase of restoring democracy.
back in march 2007, he tried to oust the chief justice of pakistan.. which he temporarily did but because of riots and public reaction he failed to have his choice. he did so because he was scared that the judiciary wouldn interfere in his eligibility to run as president again. according to the constitution, it is allowed to run for president only if you haven't worked in the government for the past two years. he broke the constitutional law because he was running two offices. anyway, so then... in november 2007, he declared an emergency throughout the country and whoever dared to speak up against him in any normal way would end up in prison (a lot of my friends and peers did) and he successfully ousted the chief justice and the entire judiciary. he brought his own puppet judiciary in order to support mush in whatever the fuck he does. this was his third phase of 'democracy'.
ms. bhutto, before coming to pakistan wrote a letter to mush that if she would be attacked then such and such people should be held responsible. she just ddin't play a fluke, she knew her shit. so on oct 18, when she was unsuccessful in being assassinated, the government automatically blamed baitullah mehsud.. some dude in the taliban.. anyway.. he didn't claim to have been behind the attack.
ms. bhutto knew herself who it was.. we all know who it is and even mush knows who did.. but again, there was no formal inquiry to this attack.
dec 27, bhutto was attacked and assassinated. in not more than a day, the government claimed and """proved""" that it was yet again baitullah mehsud by playing of recording of telephone conversation the pakistani intelligence had tapped. in it.. it is not mentioned a single time about the killing of ms. bhutto specifically. they also mentioned their whereabouts and their next rendezvous.
questions arise.. if the intelligence was 'intelligent' enough to tap their telephones why couldn't they catch them despite having mentioned about their whereabouts and rendezvous. majority of pakistan claims that this 'conversation' has been, in fact fabricated.
baitullah mehsud denied any claims that he was behind the attacks. this is very important to realise because taliban and al qaeda brag about their attacks and air a video claiming their assassinations, attack etc. mehsud also mentioned that he would never kill bhutto anyway because there was no prior enmity amongst the two.
musharraf was intimidated by ms. bhutto anyway. he feared impeachment which the country and he himself expected. now, i guarantee you, that they'll rig the elections and bring a prime minister from the same party as which musharraf belongs to, PML-Q.
together they'll suck, swallow and usurp the money that pakistan generates and the international aid they get for supporting war on terror.. it's all bull crap. i say it again, it's all bull crap. mush is THE enemy of the state.
the world doesn't need to worry about pakistan falling in the hands of 'talebanisque' government. it won't. the government is just simply procrastinating about catching and putting the extremists on trial. this way, their funds will be consistent and gather into a huge amount. mush is a good businessman.
pakistan was once a nation, now it's hardly a country. it's on the brink of civil war and ethnic, political, social and class divide. it aches to see my country getting into this state.
think for a bit.
check out Dictatorship Watch :: Putting Pakistani Dictatorship in Global & Regional Context
(sorry for any mistakes in grammar or spelling, i wrote this in a rush because my thoughts were flowing faster than my typing... i didn't proof read it anyway.)
why is 'musharraf' written in red?! i didn't do that.
Regardless of what you think of Bhutto, having a major political candidate assassinated on the eve of an election is a disaster for any country. Pakistan is growing more unstabble.
Regarding Bhutto's past support for the Taliban: Out of political expedience or short term objectives, a lot of countries, governments, and administrations have supported different groups at different times that they later regretted. The US armed factions in Afghanistan in order to oppose the Russians, and now those same groups are our worst enemies. We may someday regret our support for Musharraf, even though for the short term we have needed him. My understanding is that Pakistan's support for the Taliban was part of a "Deep Defense" strategy for a possible war with India. The idea was to have a sort of friendly puppet government in Afghanistan, so if Pakistan were ever attacked by India, there would be a miltary fallback position, and they could continue the fight from there. But support for that radical regime has furthered the cause of radicals in Pakistan itself and now may be the seeds of destruction for Pakistan.
It is not showing up red for me. Did you do some kind of page search that might highlight the word 'Musharraf'?Quote:
Originally Posted by thekhoso
I always believed that bhutto knew her shit.. for sure.. Musharraf didn't kill her thats for sure too (though he might be happy because of the loss of a 'political' opponent keeping the PML-Q in mind.) It was probably her husband and some other inside people... I don't get what the terrorist threat in Pakistan is about?? I mean, religious fanatics might show up every now and then but there is no threat of losing the nukes to the terrorist animals. I'm just sad that people think Pakistan is a terrorist refuge territory and I haven't seen one terrorist to date.. Never the less, Pakistan is a fucked up country, with a fucked up social structure...and good weed. Im just glad I live amongst the 'niche gap'
She had been the Pakistani prime minister in past years late 80s to 90 and then in the mid 90s and hoped to become one again by democratic election. So she was between terms but was running.Quote:
Originally Posted by blownn