Do you think the really care if hes a dictator or not?? I think you need to brush up on your history.
I was shocked today to see this news and very saddened as well. After the first suicide bombing attemp on her life, I had suspicions that things could be bad and they did. I think the security team for her should have at least mentioned to her that she should not be out in the open like that. But she probably knew that herself and did it anyway. Now, things are messed up.
I don't know who did this or who is to gain from this. Killing people is a lose-lose situation for everybody. As for Musharaff, he is "our" Dictator, or leader, so he will get support from us. But I question why do we support him so much? Is he better than the next person? Is he the least crazy person who can lead that country?
I think instead of focusing on one person, we should focus on the system. The system in Pakistan is effed up. The ISI and other security agencies are in collaboration with terrorists, or so-called terrorists. The whole system is infiltrated.
I would not be surprised if this was an inside job. I would also not be surprised if it was the ISI behind it, or even Musharaff. Who knows.
I don't know who did this or who is to gain from this. Killing people is a lose-lose situation for everybody. As for Musharaff, he is "our" Dictator, or leader, so he will get support from us. But I question why do we support him so much? Is he better than the next person? Is he the least crazy person who can lead that country?
I think instead of focusing on one person, we should focus on the system. The system in Pakistan is effed up. The ISI and other security agencies are in collaboration with terrorists, or so-called terrorists. The whole system is infiltrated.
I would not be surprised if this was an inside job. I would also not be surprised if it was the ISI behind it, or even Musharaff. Who knows.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even dictatorships that control the military fall when their popular support falls into the sewer.
Saddam Hussein was somewhat an exception because he had a very efficient police State set up. And Pakistan is especially handicapped because large parts of their military actively sympathizes with the Taliban. Musharrif has already been targeted by numerous assassination attempts and even our secret service concedes suicide bombers are tough to stop.
Pakistan has traditionally enjoyed a strong moderate population and a nutty religious right too small to be a serious threat. And now the moderates in Pakistan are deeply divided over constitutional issues and military control.
It just makes for a very unpredictable situation and almost anything becomes possible. Chances are the military will keep the lid on but the odds against went from small to much larger. Even if it was a 1 % chance before and a 5% chance now, it would be five times as likely. And as Pakistan lurches from crisis to crisis, the odds raise again. Especially when US boots hit the ground in Pakistan early next year which will make the religious right go ballistic.
And of course you also ignore that other traditional way for a dictatorship to fall which is in a military coup. Exactly how Musharrif took power in 1999. But when a military coup happens, the resultant government usually changes radically in direction.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Except everyone in Pakistan will know it. The only ghosts will be in the civilian causalities that will be impossible to ignore.
We have heard too many empty military promises already on how force will make everything better. Flat out, it seldom works that way in the end.
Really so how many female/non-White/ non-Christian presidents have we had exactly in the U.S?
P.S. Dictators don't share power willing, in fact usually they just stall long enough to create a plan to get rid of their rivals. Musharraf and the ISI have had a long history of playing extremist and using their violent zeal against their rivals. They have used them to get their dirty work done many times in the past. The sad truth is that Musharraf and the extremist play well off each other and in fact need each other to keep things stagnate and status quo.
It seems some people here think Musharraf is a nice guy who would never get rid of his rivals or that he wouldn't take a rather large gamble to keep his power and make a deal with violent extremists. These people are IMHO naive because power mongers when cornered will take rather large gambles if they feel threatened.
A few?!?! Bloody hell, mate! I'm not in anyway advocating the cessation of Islam, but some of you guys are getting rediculous. Pssst...it's getting easy to ascertain who the apologist, sympathizing, denialist muslims are in this thread. If many of you weren't such pussified passifists, typing from keyboards, instead of fighting in real combat, you'd probably be joined at the hip with your ilk...via a bomb strap. I sense that some who hail from right on this board probably had grandeose visions of being at that assasination, in person.
Wow tough guy well then why don't you go take on the entire world already. If you think you can change people or solve anything through violence then you are no better then the extremist. You are just one side of the same emotionally violent coin it seems.
Islamic fundamentalist take over - SHOCKING!
The worst part is they have nuclear weapons. How scarier is that?
The worst part is they have nuclear weapons. How scarier is that?
Psh.
Musharraf will be sandbagged very soon. Either that, or he'll assume total control and the country will rebel - likely leading to yet another Islamic fundamentalist country.
Only reason I care is because they currently have nuclear weapons. *sigh*
Originally posted by: palehorse74
...which makes AQ's perversion or their faith, and her murder, all the more despicable.
perhaps they are, but AFAIK, they haven't blown up any markets in downtown D.C... yet.People can twist any religion to justify anything they want. Hell, some of our own neocons are actively preparing for the Rapture in the middle east
I said this earlier:
As long as you recognize, and remember, that the fanatical element of Islam does not represent the whole, and that the majority of Muslims the world over are peaceful, you must still include the "Islam factor" in any analysis and planning.
While attempting to understand the culture and motivations of our enemies, and the enemies of the peaceful Muslims as well, it would be a deadly mistake to ignore their faith as a factor.
Those of you, like Aimster and Sensecamp, who propose to leave Islam out of the equation entirely, will never be able to make a fully informed plan of action to combat the problem. The faith of our enemies is too important a factor to ignore!
So, as long as one remembers that they do not represent the Muslim majority, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss their being Muslim.
So far the one thing all major news media can agree on is that IT IS NOT KNOWN who was responsible for the assassination. Why do you guys insist on putting the blame on Islam? There are plenty of non Islamic countries that have seen their opposition leaders killed, disappeared, do you guys wanna bash the main religion in those countries too?
We can start talking about the role of religion in this killing if it is confirmed that extremist was involved and their motivation was purely religion. But until then, please leave your anti-Islam rhetorics where it belongs.
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: palehorse74
...which makes AQ's perversion or their faith, and her murder, all the more despicable.
perhaps they are, but AFAIK, they haven't blown up any markets in downtown D.C... yet.People can twist any religion to justify anything they want. Hell, some of our own neocons are actively preparing for the Rapture in the middle east
I said this earlier:
As long as you recognize, and remember, that the fanatical element of Islam does not represent the whole, and that the majority of Muslims the world over are peaceful, you must still include the "Islam factor" in any analysis and planning.
While attempting to understand the culture and motivations of our enemies, and the enemies of the peaceful Muslims as well, it would be a deadly mistake to ignore their faith as a factor.
Those of you, like Aimster and Sensecamp, who propose to leave Islam out of the equation entirely, will never be able to make a fully informed plan of action to combat the problem. The faith of our enemies is too important a factor to ignore!
So, as long as one remembers that they do not represent the Muslim majority, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss their being Muslim.
So far the one thing all major news media can agree on is that IT IS NOT KNOWN who was responsible for the assassination. Why do you guys insist on putting the blame on Islam? There are plenty of non Islamic countries that have seen their opposition leaders killed, disappeared, do you guys wanna bash the main religion in those countries too?
We can start talking about the role of religion in this killing if it is confirmed that extremist was involved and their motivation was purely religion. But until then, please leave your anti-Islam rhetorics where it belongs.
You have not read the news much. Al-Qaeda has taken responsibility, but apparently Aimster, TheGreenBean and Sensecamp need a dose of ammonia to wake up.:shocked:
You mean the news from Adnkronos International? Are you Islamic phobic people so desperate that you use that as a source of credible info?
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: palehorse74
...which makes AQ's perversion or their faith, and her murder, all the more despicable.
perhaps they are, but AFAIK, they haven't blown up any markets in downtown D.C... yet.People can twist any religion to justify anything they want. Hell, some of our own neocons are actively preparing for the Rapture in the middle east
I said this earlier:
As long as you recognize, and remember, that the fanatical element of Islam does not represent the whole, and that the majority of Muslims the world over are peaceful, you must still include the "Islam factor" in any analysis and planning.
While attempting to understand the culture and motivations of our enemies, and the enemies of the peaceful Muslims as well, it would be a deadly mistake to ignore their faith as a factor.
Those of you, like Aimster and Sensecamp, who propose to leave Islam out of the equation entirely, will never be able to make a fully informed plan of action to combat the problem. The faith of our enemies is too important a factor to ignore!
So, as long as one remembers that they do not represent the Muslim majority, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss their being Muslim.
So far the one thing all major news media can agree on is that IT IS NOT KNOWN who was responsible for the assassination. Why do you guys insist on putting the blame on Islam? There are plenty of non Islamic countries that have seen their opposition leaders killed, disappeared, do you guys wanna bash the main religion in those countries too?
We can start talking about the role of religion in this killing if it is confirmed that extremist was involved and their motivation was purely religion. But until then, please leave your anti-Islam rhetorics where it belongs.
You have not read the news much. Al-Qaeda has taken responsibility, but apparently Aimster, TheGreenBean and Sensecamp need a dose of ammonia to wake up.:shocked:
The killing was not religiously motivated at all.
If anything the religious nuts would target the current President/leader of Pakistan since he is after religious nuts. Not some woman who wants democracy.. something the religious leaders can actually benefit from rather than dictatorship that threatens to destroy them.
Bringing religion into this is foolish.
"The source of the claim was apparently Italian news agency, Adnkronos International (AKI), which said that al Qaeda Afghanistan commander and spokesman Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid had telephoned the agency to make the claim."
ya,i posted that as it also said that source is AKI
but if CNN is citing the news in its site then i guess AKI cant be that source either.
Well im not saying that its trustworthy still.i mean CNN has it.
We will only find out the truth in some time.Lets wait and watch.
but if CNN is citing the news in its site then i guess AKI cant be that source either.
Well im not saying that its trustworthy still.i mean CNN has it.
We will only find out the truth in some time.Lets wait and watch.
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Originally posted by: rchiu
Originally posted by: palehorse74
...which makes AQ's perversion or their faith, and her murder, all the more despicable.
perhaps they are, but AFAIK, they haven't blown up any markets in downtown D.C... yet.People can twist any religion to justify anything they want. Hell, some of our own neocons are actively preparing for the Rapture in the middle east
I said this earlier:
As long as you recognize, and remember, that the fanatical element of Islam does not represent the whole, and that the majority of Muslims the world over are peaceful, you must still include the "Islam factor" in any analysis and planning.
While attempting to understand the culture and motivations of our enemies, and the enemies of the peaceful Muslims as well, it would be a deadly mistake to ignore their faith as a factor.
Those of you, like Aimster and Sensecamp, who propose to leave Islam out of the equation entirely, will never be able to make a fully informed plan of action to combat the problem. The faith of our enemies is too important a factor to ignore!
So, as long as one remembers that they do not represent the Muslim majority, it is perfectly acceptable to discuss their being Muslim.
So far the one thing all major news media can agree on is that IT IS NOT KNOWN who was responsible for the assassination. Why do you guys insist on putting the blame on Islam? There are plenty of non Islamic countries that have seen their opposition leaders killed, disappeared, do you guys wanna bash the main religion in those countries too?
We can start talking about the role of religion in this killing if it is confirmed that extremist was involved and their motivation was purely religion. But until then, please leave your anti-Islam rhetorics where it belongs.
You have not read the news much. Al-Qaeda has taken responsibility, but apparently Aimster, TheGreenBean and Sensecamp need a dose of ammonia to wake up.:shocked:
The killing was not religiously motivated at all.
If anything the religious nuts would target the current President/leader of Pakistan since he is after religious nuts. Not some woman who wants democracy.. something the religious leaders can actually benefit from rather than dictatorship that threatens to destroy them.
Bringing religion into this is foolish.
Maybe! Aimster, the fact that you and I can post here and debate has to be sooo much better than the old country, where you don't know if a bomb is gonna rip your keyborard apart.....or your throat.
her209
No Lifer
- Oct 11, 2000
- 56,336
- 11
- 0
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter