Benazir Bhutto dead in suicide bombing

[Rainsford]

You guys blaming "Islam" are idiots, you know that? She was very popular in Pakistan, and (I think) had a decent change of actually winning a fair and open election. Time will tell who did this, but I'm guessing either a fringe terrorist group or possibly the current government of Pakistan, which has been trying to drag its feet on fair and open elections for quite a while now. Recent developments suggest they might have given in on this point, but who knows what really goes on behind the scenes? In either case, trying to lay the blame at the feet of all Muslims in Pakistan is pretty fucking retarded...and demonstrates a pretty pathetic lack of understanding.

 

[kalster]

this makes me nervous being an Indian, hope this doesn't lead to even more instability in Pakistan

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: her209
When Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, was Judaism the reason for his assassination?

While he was an orthodox Jew, he acted independently. There weren't ortho jew groups calling for the assassination of Rabin like there were islamic groups calling for the assassination of Bhutto.

100 to 1 you'll find the actor in this case didn't do it on his own.

So what makes those "Islamic groups" calling for the assassination of Bhutto more qualified to speak for Islam than the much larger groups who supported her?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: RichardE

He had nothing to gain from this. Neither does the US have anything to gain from this. Sure she was trying to do good ect ect but was not making huge inroads and there was no real threat of it anytime soon. Your weaving this huge web of conspircay that is too complicated to bother with.

If it was your version, blood will run in the streets, if it was just a extremist jihadist party, blood will run in the streets. If the civil war branches out to India, even more blood will run. The only people who had anything to gain from this are the anarchists, of which Misharraf and Uncle Sam are not.

You need to put down that pipe and smoke a dose of reality.

The only people who had anything to gain from this are the anarchists, of which Misharraf and Uncle Sam are not

After the Oct 18 bomb attacks, Bhutto and the MQM set aside their great differences to come together to fight the US puppet-general Musharraf, the dictator-extremist in Pakistan. Musharraf was road kill on the path to democracy and constitutional rule of law in Pakistan.

Musharraf had everything to gain from the death of Bhutto.

Musharraf could not even consolidate power within his own party, the Pakistan Muslim League, so he had his self-appointted election commission ban Nawaz Sharif.

Welcome to the real world, bud.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
You guys blaming "Islam" are idiots, you know that? She was very popular in Pakistan, and (I think) had a decent change of actually winning a fair and open election. Time will tell who did this, but I'm guessing either a fringe terrorist group or possibly the current government of Pakistan, which has been trying to drag its feet on fair and open elections for quite a while now. Recent developments suggest they might have given in on this point, but who knows what really goes on behind the scenes? In either case, trying to lay the blame at the feet of all Muslims in Pakistan is pretty fucking retarded...and demonstrates a pretty pathetic lack of understanding.

You're the only one who said "all Muslims in Pakistan".

Ignoring the last XX years of violence perpetrated in the name of islam is pretty fucking retarded.

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: her209
When Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated, was Judaism the reason for his assassination?

While he was an orthodox Jew, he acted independently. There weren't ortho jew groups calling for the assassination of Rabin like there were islamic groups calling for the assassination of Bhutto.

100 to 1 you'll find the actor in this case didn't do it on his own.

So what makes those "Islamic groups" calling for the assassination of Bhutto more qualified to speak for Islam than the much larger groups who supported her?

Qualifications to speak for islam? WTF are you talking about?

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
So "clearly," you must have an inside source who provided you with proof that Mush was behind the attack.... right?

No?

OK, I'm confused... I mean, you wrote that so matter-of-factly!

Ohhhh, I get it! You're keeping that information and your sources locked away in a Top Secret Leftist vault somewhere -- just as you do with every bit of "evidence" against Bush for all of his "crimes"...

I've no respect for you and your obfuscation and fallacies, PH. You are simply a 'tool' with nothing to add to this discussion.

 

[RichardE]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: RichardE

He had nothing to gain from this. Neither does the US have anything to gain from this. Sure she was trying to do good ect ect but was not making huge inroads and there was no real threat of it anytime soon. Your weaving this huge web of conspircay that is too complicated to bother with.

If it was your version, blood will run in the streets, if it was just a extremist jihadist party, blood will run in the streets. If the civil war branches out to India, even more blood will run. The only people who had anything to gain from this are the anarchists, of which Misharraf and Uncle Sam are not.

You need to put down that pipe and smoke a dose of reality.

The only people who had anything to gain from this are the anarchists, of which Misharraf and Uncle Sam are not

After the Oct 18 bomb attacks, Bhutto and the MQM set aside their great differences to come together to fight the US puppet-general Musharraf, the dictator-extremist in Pakistan. Musharraf was road kill on the path to democracy and constitutional rule of law in Pakistan.

Musharraf had everything to gain from the death of Bhutto.

Musharraf could not even consolidate power within his own party, the Pakistan Muslim League, so he had his self-appointted election commission ban Nawaz Sharif.

Welcome to the real world, bud.

So the attacks led to a stronger support base to fight Misharraf against, something that attacks like that cause. So again, there was nothing to gain from it except someone stronger to fight. Even if the Oct 18th attacks had killed her, her supporters would have flocked to the MQM and there would still be a massive force against Musharraf.

You live in a self appointed world of conspiracy where things are not only not black and white, nor grey, but grey and foggy and only great intricate details can show the truth. Reality is usually much more cut and dry than that.

Your conspiracy is the equilavent of saying the US caused the assassination that plunged the world into WW1 due to the fact they could profit off of selling arms. Its not only far fetched, its non sense. These people you accuse are not idiots, they did not rise to power because they had the inability to do a profit vs risk analysis. They got there playing it safe, not putting there neck out and making sure to only stab people in the back when it wasn't obvious, thats how politics is played all over the world. You don't do something as bold as killing an opposition leader when a much smaller action is all you need to take care of the problem. Its like nuking a city to kill one guy when a small 5 man SF team would do.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: teclis1023
She has been in charge twice already.

She was Prime Minister. And "in charge" is a highly subjective term in this case.

Care to elaborate on this? I don't sense any mea culpas coming down the pipe from PJ or Pabst of course.

 

[Atrail]

There have been several attempts at Musharraf's life as well. He is still a target.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: heyheybooboo

Originally posted by: palehorse74
So "clearly," you must have an inside source who provided you with proof that Mush was behind the attack.... right?

No?

OK, I'm confused... I mean, you wrote that so matter-of-factly!

Ohhhh, I get it! You're keeping that information and your sources locked away in a Top Secret Leftist vault somewhere -- just as you do with every bit of "evidence" against Bush for all of his "crimes"...

I've no respect for you and your obfuscation and fallacies, PH. You are simply a 'tool' with nothing to add to this discussion.

Is that personal attack the only response you can make to my accusations? You essentially pegged this on Mush, within hours of the attack, with little or no proof. You speak as though you have proof that he is behind the attack. Try backing your bullsh*t up for a change...

btw, is "obfuscation" your word of the day? yay.... mine are "intellectual dishonesty"!!

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: ProfJohnA woman in charge of a government in the Islamic world? No way they would stand for something like that.

Originally posted by: PabsterHilarious that people would expect a 'religion' which punishes the raped, rather than the raper, to accept a woman in a position of power or authority. Not gonna happen.

Uh huh...

?India: Indira Gandhi (1966-77, 1980-84)
?Pakistan: Benazir Bhutto (1988-96)
?Bangladesh: Begum Zia (1991-1996, 2001-2006)
?Indonesia: Megawati Sukarnoputri (2001-2004)
?Turkey: Tansu Ciller (1993-1996)

(India obviously does not have a majority of its population as Muslims, but it still has well over 100,000 of them, larger than most Muslim-majority countries)


Oh yes, clearly a woman in charge of a government in the Islamic world is "not gonna happen"....

Originally posted by: ProfJohnA woman in charge of a government in the Islamic world? No way they would stand for something like that.

Originally posted by: PabsterHilarious that people would expect a 'religion' which punishes the raped, rather than the raper, to accept a woman in a position of power or authority. Not gonna happen.

?India: Indira Gandhi (1966-77, 1980-84)
?Pakistan: Benazir Bhutto (1988-96)
?Bangladesh: Begum Zia (1991-1996, 2001-2006)
?Indonesia: Megawati Sukarnoputri (2001-2004)
?Turkey: Tansu Ciller (1993-1996)

(India obviously does not have a majority of its population as Muslims, but it still has well over 100,000 of them, larger than most Muslim-majority countries)


And I'm sure there are other examples of how wrong both of you are.


Obviously there are plenty of examples of those who call themselves ?Muslims? committing plainly evil acts, but to imply, as both of you and others here do, that they represent the vast majority of Muslims, is not only blatantly false, but something that helps Bin Laden and others like him. After all, Bin Laden's goal is to unite the Muslim world against the West (which, owing to the peaceful majority of Muslims, obviously has not happened). Your fear of Muslims and desire to equate the peaceful majority with the extremist minority is the black-and-white world-view that aids Bin Laden.

 

[Atrail]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Obviously there are plenty of examples of those who call themselves ?Muslims? committing plainly evil acts, but to imply, as both of you and others here do, that they represent the vast majority of Muslims, is not only blatantly false, but something that helps Bin Laden and others like him. After all, Bin Laden's goal is to unite the Muslim world against the West (which, owing to the peaceful majority of Muslims, obviously has not happened).

Good point.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: monk3y

Originally posted by: effee
A woman in charge of an Islamic nation? Never going to happen, it was just a matter of time

She has lead the nation in the past.

PJ, Flabster and effee obviously don't know any history.

I'm not here to defend Islamic nations, but they've had more women leaders then we have - I still hear morons (even on this board) who will discredit Clinton because she is a woman. There are plenty of other reasons to discredit her, but that is not one of them.

 

[Braznor]

Musharaff is an evil man. He started the Kargil War and was about to nuke India before he was stopped. But I still look at this situation objectively and can confidently say : this wasn't Musharaff's doing.

Musharaff seems to have matured since then. He has learnt to mollify and fool the west with occasional bouquets from the jihadi garden in his western frontier and at the same time, divert the jihadi attention to Kashmir by flooding India with terrorists from across the border. (We deserve it, I know that's the classic P&N opinion)

This wasn't Musharaff's job. Yes he is capable of doing such a thing, he is a rotten bastard, but not a fool.

This assassination eliminated his closest potential ally. The men who are left are his absolute mortal enemies.

Nawaz Sharief was deposed by Musharaff in a coup after the Kargil war to cover up his defeat. Justice Choudhary is a judge who waws removed, jailed for being insubordinate to Musharaff, of course he is free now and a fly in Mushy's oinment.


This dirty deed ain't gonna soil Mushy's underwear anyhow.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Obviously there are plenty of examples of those who call themselves ?Muslims? committing plainly evil acts, but to imply, as both of you and others here do, that they represent the vast majority of Muslims, is not only blatantly false, but something that helps Bin Laden and others like him. After all, Bin Laden's goal is to unite the Muslim world against the West (which, owing to the peaceful majority of Muslims, obviously has not happened). Your fear of Muslims and desire to equate the peaceful majority with the extremist minority is the black-and-white world-view that aids Bin Laden.

/agreed


The key is to always remember that the fanatical aspects and players are a very small piece of the whole, and in no way represent the core beliefs of the truly peaceful majority.

That said, we still need to study and understand the aspects of Islam that do play a role in the current problems. Completely removing religion from the equation prevents one from producing a thorough and accurate analysis.

In essence, it's a small cancer that is slowly eating away at the very large Islamic body -- and some of our own actions and decisions are making it spread faster than it would otherwise.

We simply need to reverse the trend.... somehow...

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: monk3y

Originally posted by: effee
A woman in charge of an Islamic nation? Never going to happen, it was just a matter of time

She has lead the nation in the past.

PJ, Flabster and effee obviously don't know any history.

I'm not here to defend Islamic nations, but they've had more women leaders then we have - I still hear morons (even on this board) who will discredit Clinton because she is a woman. There are plenty of other reasons to discredit her, but that is not one of them.

All those women leaders are dynastic, including India. Don't be under the illusion that farce in South Asia called Parliamentary democracy ever produced a candidate of merit who made an impact.

Anyway the system is crumbling now. What you are admiring today is on the verge of extinction.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: monk3y

Originally posted by: effee
A woman in charge of an Islamic nation? Never going to happen, it was just a matter of time

She has lead the nation in the past.

PJ, Flabster and effee obviously don't know any history.

I'm not here to defend Islamic nations, but they've had more women leaders then we have - I still hear morons (even on this board) who will discredit Clinton because she is a woman. There are plenty of other reasons to discredit her, but that is not one of them.

All those women leaders are dynastic, including India. Don't be under the illusion that farce in South Asia called Parliamentary democracy ever produced a candidate of merit who made an impact.

Anyway the system is crumbling now. What you are admiring today is on the verge of extinction.

Dynastic or not, shouldn't it be more difficult for them in Islamic countries anyway?

Anyway, I'm not at all surprised by this outcome at all... the future of Pakistan is not good for the US...

 

[mayanks098]

Two people armed with AK-47 attacked her and a suicide bomber blew himself standing next to the car in which she was in.

Surprisingly,no one went near to the car for about ten minutes after the blast.That raises a question or two.

This is a very sad incident and a severe blow to democracy in Pakistan.

Other former PM, Nawaz Sharif has already been declared ?unfit? for the contesting in the elections by the Supreme Court and the other major leader is now dead.There will be a vaccum created now as the country has no powerful leader to vote for.People already are in state of shock.It will be interesting to see how opposition reacts to this and how will Musharraf handle this critical situation.

This situation is very critical as general public has already started dis-liking Musharraf more and also Pakistan is a nuclear state with not a very clean record.Lets hope this whole thing does not lead to something(nuclear warheads falling in hands of extremists/terrorists) which can be very dangerous.

May her soul rest in peace.

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: monk3y

Originally posted by: effee
A woman in charge of an Islamic nation? Never going to happen, it was just a matter of time

She has lead the nation in the past.

PJ, Flabster and effee obviously don't know any history.

I'm not here to defend Islamic nations, but they've had more women leaders then we have - I still hear morons (even on this board) who will discredit Clinton because she is a woman. There are plenty of other reasons to discredit her, but that is not one of them.

All those women leaders are dynastic, including India. Don't be under the illusion that farce in South Asia called Parliamentary democracy ever produced a candidate of merit who made an impact.

Anyway the system is crumbling now. What you are admiring today is on the verge of extinction.

Dynastic or not, shouldn't it be more difficult for them in Islamic countries anyway?

Anyway, I'm not at all surprised by this outcome at all... the future of Pakistan is not good for the US...

You are confused in thinking that these people get voted directly into power. In a parliamentary democracy (as in case of India), the people vote their local representatives and these crooks run the nation like an elite club.

So there is no way a voter ever got to directly vote for these people. This ain't a presidential system where the voters chose their leaders directly.

This is a plutocracy mixed with nepotism and sycophancy. The reason why these women lasted in their respective political arenas is because of the enormous wealth their hubbies had looted while alive and in power.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: monk3y

Originally posted by: effee
A woman in charge of an Islamic nation? Never going to happen, it was just a matter of time

She has lead the nation in the past.

PJ, Flabster and effee obviously don't know any history.

I'm not here to defend Islamic nations, but they've had more women leaders then we have - I still hear morons (even on this board) who will discredit Clinton because she is a woman. There are plenty of other reasons to discredit her, but that is not one of them.

All those women leaders are dynastic, including India. Don't be under the illusion that farce in South Asia called Parliamentary democracy ever produced a candidate of merit who made an impact.

Anyway the system is crumbling now. What you are admiring today is on the verge of extinction.

Dynastic or not, shouldn't it be more difficult for them in Islamic countries anyway?

Anyway, I'm not at all surprised by this outcome at all... the future of Pakistan is not good for the US...

You are confused in thinking that these people get voted directly into power. In a parliamentary democracy (as in case of India), the people vote their local representatives and these crooks run the nation like an elite club.

So there is no way a voter ever got to directly vote for these people. This ain't a presidential system where the voters chose their leaders directly.

This is a plutocracy mixed with nepotism and sycophancy. The reason why these women lasted in their respective political arenas is because of the enormous wealth their hubbies has looted while alive and in power.

No, I'm not confused. I never once said they were voted directly in to power, did I?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: monk3y

Originally posted by: effee
A woman in charge of an Islamic nation? Never going to happen, it was just a matter of time

She has lead the nation in the past.

PJ, Flabster and effee obviously don't know any history.

I'm not here to defend Islamic nations, but they've had more women leaders then we have - I still hear morons (even on this board) who will discredit Clinton because she is a woman. There are plenty of other reasons to discredit her, but that is not one of them.

All those women leaders are dynastic, including India. Don't be under the illusion that farce in South Asia called Parliamentary democracy ever produced a candidate of merit who made an impact.

Anyway the system is crumbling now. What you are admiring today is on the verge of extinction.

Dynastic or not, shouldn't it be more difficult for them in Islamic countries anyway?

Anyway, I'm not at all surprised by this outcome at all... the future of Pakistan is not good for the US...

You are confused in thinking that these people get voted directly into power. In a parliamentary democracy (as in case of India), the people vote their local representatives and these crooks run the nation like an elite club.

So there is no way a voter ever got to directly vote for these people. This ain't a presidential system where the voters chose their leaders directly.

This is a plutocracy mixed with nepotism and sycophancy. The reason why these women lasted in their respective political arenas is because of the enormous wealth their hubbies has looted while alive and in power.

No, I'm not confused. I never once said they were voted directly in to power, did I?

Okay, but your original assumption of these women being candidates of merit did touch upon it.

 

[mayanks098]

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: monk3y

Originally posted by: effee
A woman in charge of an Islamic nation? Never going to happen, it was just a matter of time

She has lead the nation in the past.

PJ, Flabster and effee obviously don't know any history.

I'm not here to defend Islamic nations, but they've had more women leaders then we have - I still hear morons (even on this board) who will discredit Clinton because she is a woman. There are plenty of other reasons to discredit her, but that is not one of them.

All those women leaders are dynastic, including India. Don't be under the illusion that farce in South Asia called Parliamentary democracy ever produced a candidate of merit who made an impact.

Anyway the system is crumbling now. What you are admiring today is on the verge of extinction.

and which all countries does this include?

 

[Braznor]

Originally posted by: mayanks098

Originally posted by: Braznor

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: monk3y

Originally posted by: effee
A woman in charge of an Islamic nation? Never going to happen, it was just a matter of time

She has lead the nation in the past.

PJ, Flabster and effee obviously don't know any history.

I'm not here to defend Islamic nations, but they've had more women leaders then we have - I still hear morons (even on this board) who will discredit Clinton because she is a woman. There are plenty of other reasons to discredit her, but that is not one of them.

All those women leaders are dynastic, including India. Don't be under the illusion that farce in South Asia called Parliamentary democracy ever produced a candidate of merit who made an impact.

Anyway the system is crumbling now. What you are admiring today is on the verge of extinction.

and which all countries does this include?

I speak for India, Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Indira Gandhi : daughter of Jawaharlal Nehru.
Bhutto : daughter of Z.A.Bhutto.
Bangladesh : Khaleda Begum whatever and her rival are wives of former leaders.

Regarding Sri Lanka : the current female leader is the daughter of a former leader

Sirimavo Ratwatte Dias Bandaranaike (April 17, 1916 - October 10, 2000) was a politician from Sri Lanka. She was prime minister of Sri Lanka three times, 1960-1965, 1970-1977 and 1994-2000, and was the world's first female prime minister. She was a leader of the Sri Lanka Freedom Party. She was the wife of a previous Sri Lankan prime minister, Solomon Bandaranaike and the mother of Sri Lanka's third president, Chandrika Kumaratunga. She was also mother of Anura Bandaranaike, Sri Lankan tourism minister and Sunethra Bandaranaike, philanthropist.

Wiki

 

[mayanks098]

you saying Mrs. Indira Gandhi was not a meritorious candidate?
okay,she had Gandhi name but she is one of the most powerful leaders of India.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: Braznor
Anyway the system is crumbling now. What you are admiring today is on the verge of extinction.

Certainly is, but now our own people flat out blame us for what's wrong in the Muslim world.

Originally posted by: ZebuluniteV
Obviously there are plenty of examples of those who call themselves ?Muslims? committing plainly evil acts, but to imply, as both of you and others here do, that they represent the vast majority of Muslims, is not only blatantly false, but something that helps Bin Laden and others like him. After all, Bin Laden's goal is to unite the Muslim world against the West (which, owing to the peaceful majority of Muslims, obviously has not happened). Your fear of Muslims and desire to equate the peaceful majority with the extremist minority is the black-and-white world-view that aids Bin Laden.

What a jewel.

Yet the mistake, and fatal to your entire line of thought, is that the minority is not something that is flatly condemned by the majority. They may not be equal, but they are not exclusive from each other either. The cancer is global and it continues to spread.

What it was yesterday, and what it is today, is not what it will become tomorrow. Its growth continues, and I find you?d want us to treat it like this was the 20th century. As if the majority are going to oppose it successfully. They will not, the evidence of this is written in the hatred preached across the globe and the blood splattered on the walls of every nation.

Tell me, do you support doing everything necessary to separate this cancer from its host?

It seems fairly obvious to me that the American people believe Afghanistan and even Iraq are enough ?action? to actually supplant our need for a public discourse on how to deal with the cancer. When the truth is we?ve taken NO action to deal with it. Instead we?re fighting with ourselves over the distraction and have taken our eyes off the ball entirely.

The current situation bodes fairly ill for anyone thinking this cancer of radicalization will not continue spreading throughout the host. Including our own soil. Whether we succeed in Iraq, or succeed at abolishing the Republican party for starting Iraq, we have utterly lost in securing America.