RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Benazir Bhutto assassinated...

Posted by: Tree
- [3533298] Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 08:37

pretty shocking...

looks like it was a suicide bombing, but earlier reports had her in surgery for a bullet wound to the neck...might have been shrapnel though..

but still, wow. this, of course follows an incident a few days ago at a political rally of another former prime minister of pakistan, Nawaz Sharif.

i wonder if there is any chance of this straining our relationship with Musharraf.

1nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 09:13


Big Big Big Deal.

This could trigger massive civil unrest and even civil war.

2Bond, James Bond
      Sustainer
      ID: 04352469
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 09:47
Bhutto had been targeted on many other occasions before this. Supposedly security was tight with hundreds of officers and metal detectors. Certainly, supporters of Musharraf will be blamed and Musharraf himself may pay the ultimate price.

I guess this just goes to show you that if somebody really, really wants to get you, they can.
3Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 09:57
Bhutto was a courageous woman, but her strategy was flawed, she needed a strong military partner like Musharraf. Islamic facsists can not be handled with passive western ideologies.
4Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 10:17
I fail to see any argument that Pakistan's Taliban and al Qaeda problem would have been addressed any more passively than the often Islamist-appeasing government of Pervez Musharraf. She's been quite critical of his stalling tactics.
5Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 10:35
You made my point, Mith. Being critical of Musharraf handling of Islamist extremists opened up a 2 front war for her. Her ONLY chance for success was to team with Musharraf and form a common front against Jihadists.
6tree on the treo
      ID: 40842210
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 10:51
never has a post gone more over someone's head than miths sailing over jags....
7Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 10:58
Tree, shouldn't you be searching the newspapers to find a white on black crime, so you can promote racial warfare. I think a slinky is over your head.
8Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 11:10
You made my point, Mith.

Interesting how your point changed sometime between 10 (when you said her approach was too passive) and 10:30 (now you think she was too aggressive).

You also wrongly imply that Bhutto was solely to blame for the hostility between her and Musharraf.

Unless you feel that Musharraf's unilateral amnendment to the Pakistani constitution to limit prime ministers to two terms (deliberately preventing Bhutto and former PM Sharif from ever being elected PM again) was orchestrated by Bhutto while she was in exile.

Or that Bhutto's was to blame for Musharraf's declaration in May that Bhutto would never set foot on Pakistani soil again.

And that it was she she drove a wedge between herself and Musharraf by being placed under house arrest... by Musharraf.
9Tree
      ID: 3533298
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 11:19
Tree, shouldn't you be searching the newspapers to find a white on black crime, so you can promote racial warfare. I think a slinky is over your head.

honestly, i'm not even sure what either of those statements mean, Mr. RotoColbert.

in post 3, you said: she needed a strong military partner like Musharraf...

in post 4, MITH said: I fail to see any argument that Pakistan's Taliban and al Qaeda problem would have been addressed any more passively than the often Islamist-appeasing government of Pervez Musharraf.

which lead to your post 5: Being critical of Musharraf handling of Islamist extremists opened up a 2 front war for her. Her ONLY chance for success was to team with Musharraf and form a common front against Jihadists.

Musharraf didn't have a front against Jihadists. hence, Bhutto's condemnation of him, and MITH's post.

really, that wasn't all that complicated.

10Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 11:32
She had no chance of succeeding without Musharraf's help. Every time I heard her on television, she was critical of him. I believe it was a bad strategy, but obviously Tree and Mith think otherwise. Maybe we can get Tree to run for PM of Pakistan.
11Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 11:36
I wouldn't necessarily say that Musharraf didn't have a front (whatever exactly Jag means by that) against jihadists. But his record, for all the many billions in military aid he's received from Bush over the years, was terribly spotty at best. His offensives were mostly ineffective and sandwiched between appeasments of tribes that he knows protect Jihadists.
12Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 11:44
Her criticism of Musharraf was not an anti-jihadist "strategy". Further, she had no chance of "succeeding" by passively accepting her own marginalization at the hands of Musharraf.
13Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 11:50
So, Musharraf should have engaged them and created a civil war?

Trying to keep Pakistan stable by helping Musharraf was a no brainer. Iran is an excellent example of what could happen if Bush didn't try to keep the current government propped up, except Pakistan has the Bomb and it would come under Islamic Fascist control.
15Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 11:59
If you think the American aid sent to Pakistan was for the exclusive purpose of keeping Pakistan "stable" and not for help in engaging terrorists then you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention.

I'm not interested in your self-reasoned Bush Administration-protecting fantasy version of things. That money is sent to Pakistan TO HELP HIM ROOT OUT TERRORISTS - an endeavor he has continually thumbed his nose at, except for a handful of token excursions into the tribal areas. Yet he continues to cash our checks. If you think expecting him to fight the Islamists in his country is foolhardy, aim your criticism at your president and his foreign policy, not at me.
16Mattinglyinthehall
      ID: 454491514
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 12:11
You really are a laugh. In your first post here this morning, you criticized Bhutto as too passive to "handle" Islamists in Pakistan, claiming "she needed a strong military partner like Musharraf." Now, just a few hours later, you argue that passivity is exactly how to deal with Islamist terrorists in Pakistan.

You can't even pin your own positions down.
17Myboyjack
      ID: 8216923
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 12:47
Mark Steyn comments:

Since her last spell in power, Pakistan has changed, profoundly. Its sovereignty is meaningless in increasingly significant chunks of its territory, and, within the portions Musharraf is just about holding together, to an ever more radicalized generation of young Muslim men Miss Bhutto was entirely unacceptable as the leader of their nation. "Everyone’s an expert on Pakistan, a faraway country of which we know everything," I wrote last month. "It seems to me a certain humility is appropriate." The State Department geniuses thought they had it all figured out. They'd arranged a shotgun marriage between the Bhutto and Sharif factions as a "united" "democratic" "movement" and were pushing Musharraf to reach a deal with them. That's what diplomats do: They find guys in suits and get 'em round a table. But none of those representatives represents the rapidly evolving reality of Pakistan. Miss Bhutto could never have been a viable leader of a post-Musharraf settlement, and the delusion that she could have been sent her to her death. Earlier this year, I had an argument with an old (infidel) boyfriend of Benazir's, who swatted my concerns aside with the sweeping claim that "the whole of the western world" was behind her. On the streets of Islamabad, that and a dime'll get you a cup of coffee.

As I said, she was everything we in the west would like a Muslim leader to be. We should be modest enough to acknowledge when reality conflicts with our illusions. Rest in peace, Benazir.

18Punk42AE
      Donor
      ID: 036635522
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 13:30
The device was believed to have been packed with lead pellets and created carnage among the crowds of supporters who had gathered to see her.
19Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 17:06
Mith, you can't deal with Jihadists passively, they see it as a weakness and will further their terrorism. Critizing about Musarraf is not aggressive action, it is doing a Nancy Pelosi impression. The uniting of her forces with Musharraf's may have had a chance, TOGETHER, to stem the Jihadist movement, but for some reason, whether it have been Musharraf, Bhutto or both, it never came to be.
20Perm Dude
      ID: 481151269
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 17:37
It seems likely she was assasinated by "jihadists." Certainly the previous attempt on her life was by thiem.

You might not think that Bhutto was a threat to them but they certainly did. Making your opinion moot, IMO.
21Tree
      ID: 4811422716
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 18:02
Jag - so you're in favor of being aggressive with Jihadists, which Musharraf was clearly not being.

yet you believe Bhutto should have worked with him...um, why? to continue his passive behaviour toward the Jihadists?

Critizing about Musarraf is not aggressive action, it is doing a Nancy Pelosi impression.

so, in other words, if you're going to get raped, don't fight back? just relax and enjoy it?
22Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 18:19
Nice analogy Tree, here is a better one, say you are an ex-Prime Minister of a Muslim country and you have all these extemists wanting to kill you for many reasons, including just being a woman in power, and instead of working with the leader of the military, who is your only hope for protection, you critize him and make millions of more enemies, making your death inevitable.
23Tree
      ID: 4811422716
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 18:47
instead of working with the leader of the military, who is your only hope for protection, you critize him and make millions of more enemies, making your death inevitable.

i suppose that's the difference between Bhutto and you.

she stands up for her principles, no matter the risk. she wouldn't compromise, and befriend someone who, apparently, had the power of life and death over her.

based on your statement, you're much easier than she is. she'll take a stand. you? you'll apparently just bend over, and take it.
24Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 18:48
and instead of working with the leader of the military

I tend to think the yet unacknowledged examples I provided in post 8 put a bit of a damper on her ability to "work with" Musharraf.

For the record, Bhutto had been negotiationg a return to Pakistan with Musharraf since early this year. But as I've pointed out, Musharraf continually threw up roadblocks to any arrangement in which he would be expected to cede any power.

If you think their combined "forces" stood a better chance at eradicating the Taliban and al Qaeda in the north and marginalizing Islamist sentiment around the country, you are criticizing the wrong party for their lack of cooperation.



Perhaps someone else can decifer his position for me:
Post 3: she needed a strong military partner like Musharraf. Islamic facsists can not be handled with passive western ideologies.

Post 13: (sarcasticly) So, Musharraf should have engaged them and created a civil war?

Post 19: you can't deal with Jihadists passively, they see it as a weakness and will further their terrorism.
25Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 19:05
You have 3 political factions, Mith, Bhutto's party, which is the largest, Musharraf's gang, including the military and the Muslim extremists. If the Pakistan People's Party and Musharraf had worked together, they could of controlled the extremists, but if Musarraf tried to go it alone, there was a good chance the PPP would of tried to seize power. This was the entire reason Bhutto was brought back to Pakistan. Not sure why this is so hard for you to understand.
26Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 19:18
?

That explains post 24?
27Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 20:11
The civil war comment is aimed at you wanting Musharraf to engage western Pakistan, where Bin Laden is expected to be hiding. Western Pakistan is almost like a separate country and could attempt a civil war. You can be aggressive and attack Al Queda's infrastructer without causing a civil war with Western Pakistan. Musarraf is a strong leader in a turmultuous country, he has shown he can stand up to radical fundimentalists when he took back Islamabad's Red Mosque, but he can't even begin to tackle Western Pakistan until there is a great improvement domestically and Bhutto, even with the best of intentions, destroyed any chance of that. It will now take decades to fight Al-Queda in Western Pakistan or a more agressive, even oppressive, military government.
28nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 21:17


PD

It seems likely she was assasinated by "jihadists." Certainly the previous attempt on her life was by them.

The first attempt? Bhutto herself suggested there was probable government if not Mushraff's involvement. Among other points she mentioned that the street lights were suddenly turned off right before the attack.

This mornings attack there is evidence a gunman got all the way up to the car.

Who stands to gain? Musharraf who now doesn't have to deal with a popular political opponent who was about to become the Prime Minister.

Bhotto's own people have suggested this morning there was possible government involvement.

I just wouldn't be so confident to declare that it's an open shut case and it was all "jihadists".

29Jag
      ID: 14828255
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 21:20
There were some suicide bombers at the scene, which suggest more of Jihadist's attack.
30nerveclinic
      ID: 105222
      Thu, Dec 27, 2007, 22:38

There were some suicide bombers at the scene, which suggest more of Jihadist's attack.

I'm not saying it wasn't Islamist extremists, maybe is even likely it was...I'm just saying it's not a closed case and even if they were the cause, it doesn't mean they were the only ones involved.

On top of that Bhutto and her people have made it clear they were suspicious Musharraf wanted to see her gone.

31Bond, James Bond
      Sustainer
      ID: 04352469
      Fri, Dec 28, 2007, 12:03
Apparently the news is now that Bhutto was NOT assassinated but likely died from falling onto the lever in her sunroof.

Bhutto NOT assassinated

Anybody buying this? Not me.
32Mattinglyinthehall
      Leader
      ID: 01629107
      Fri, Dec 28, 2007, 12:44
You're reading way too much into that. The report doesn't claim she wasn't assassinated. If it's true, she was still killed as a result of the blast from a suicide bomber. Why would someone invent that lie?
33Perm Dude
      ID: 481151269
      Fri, Dec 28, 2007, 12:49
I agree. While the information about the exact manner of her death is interesting, the blast was clearly directed at her.

Yahoo story
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours11
Last 7 days11
Last 30 days87
Since Mar 1, 20071253650