PDA

View Full Version : Pakistan's Benazir Bhutto assassinated



KaiZX
12-27-2007, 07:52 AM
For those of you who might not have known just yet, Pakistan's former prime minister Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated during a political rally. She passed away from injuries at 6:16pm local time (GMT +5:00). The news article is here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071227/ap_on_re_as/pakistan;_ylt=As7g85b2WJJDGLUT.dmL2SWs0NUE

Also, a wiki link on Bhutto:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto

Personally, I'm not familiar with the politics of that region of Earth. That said, however, I do know this: Pakistan is one of several countries in that region to hold a nuclear arsenal, and it also happens to be one of the most politically and socially unstable countries in the world. And what do you know? It's a country that the US's Bush Administration screws up in its "war on terror."

My question now is: What happens? IMO, if General Musharaff is not screwed before, we can now stick a fork in him, because he is done politically. Whether or not he has a hand in this attack or not, people particularly in Pakistan will almost certainly tie him with this event in one way or another. The state of emergency fiasco, plus Mrs. Bhutto's assassination, has just about stripped him of every ounce of credibility he has left (if he had any to begin with).

kingx11
12-27-2007, 08:09 AM
Musharaff is going out of there dead or alive and mostly dead unless he hide somewhere in europe

ShadowRFox
12-27-2007, 08:15 AM
This has killed Musharaff politically and quite possible it will kill him literally, at the rate Bhutto supporters are rioting.

KaiZX
12-27-2007, 08:22 AM
Musharaff is going out of there dead or alive and mostly dead unless he hide somewhere in europe

But what country is going to want to house Musharaff? At the very least, he's now as much of a persona non grata as you can get. And given what he has done in his country, he may even be tried in an internation court. That might be an exaggeration, but he was already infamous for the emergency lockdown, and now this...

EDIT: By the way, what's interesting to me as I'm listening to CNN is the obvious media bias... All media organization thus far has mentioned the possibility that the assassin is "Al Qaeda" or "Taliban" or "Islamic militants," but of course everyone is ignoring what I'm sure is the prevailing thought in Pakistan right now... "Was it Musharraf himself?"

Now, I don't think he's stupid enough to do this, but on the other hand I didn't think he would declare a state of emergency before either and he did. And no matter whether or not he did it, he's still going to be tied to Bhutto's death in one way or another.

DK3411
12-27-2007, 08:28 AM
If I'm not mistaken, Musharraf has nothing to do with this. I mean, anyone with a little IQ and analytic capacity will know that killing a political rival who is more popular than you are just before campaigning isn't going to work wonders for your own popularity and credibility.

If anything, it's got to be those Al-Qaeda terrorists who will then capitalize on the social instability for their own agenda. After all, Musharraf has been "aiding" the US in hunting down Islamic terrorists within Pakistan.

Think about it, in this situation, Musharraf has everything to lose while the terrorists have everything to gain.

I'm not a Musharraf supporter or anything, but I can't shake the feeling that there's a malicious 3rd party involved in this mess.

KaiZX
12-27-2007, 08:47 AM
If I'm not mistaken, Musharraf has nothing to do with this. I mean, anyone with a little IQ and analytic capacity will know that killing a political rival who is more popular than you are just before campaigning isn't going to work wonders for your own popularity and credibility.

If anything, it's got to be those Al-Qaeda terrorists who will then capitalize on the social instability for their own agenda. After all, Musharraf has been "aiding" the US in hunting down Islamic terrorists within Pakistan.

Think about it, in this situation, Musharraf has everything to lose while the terrorists have everything to gain.

I'm not a Musharraf supporter or anything, but I can't shake the feeling that there's a malicious 3rd party involved in this mess.

Yes, if you look at it from that perspective, but there's another layer to it too... and that's the layer of the January elections.

With Bhutto's death, the biggest immediate question is whether Pakistan's January 8th elections are going to be held as planned.

I'll be honest with you that I was tempted to say that myself. When I first saw news of her death, my immediate thought was "Oh, Islamic militants." But that kind of thought shows a lack of skepticism that we need for this situation.

What we're forgetting here, and what all the major news media here in the US aren't saying, is the complicated political struggles in Pakistan right now. You don't have just militants one side and "reformists" on the other. Bhutto and her party represented a majority of Pakistanis, but they are the most liberal group in Pakistani politics. We're forgetting Nawaz Sharif, the other opposition leader, as well as Musharraf's party, which is conservative but are not Taliban. That's not even including the Pakistani Army, who may have their own political agenda.

And no, Musharraf doesn't have everything to lose. The longer he delays the elections, the longer he stays in power. And in an authoritarian government like the one he had when he declared a state of emergency, the phrase "everything to lose" all of a sudden takes on a whole different meaning.

That's why a simple answer of "Oh it has to be terrorists" is naive, and perhaps dangerously naive. I'll agree though that the stability of that region is now in serious jeopardy, and there's good reason to be afraid that Pakistan will descend into the kind of chaos that Iraq is now.

And that sums up why I hate the Bush Administration. Freakin' failures...

Drakron
12-27-2007, 11:02 AM
The Talibans had a "you do not bother us, we do not bother you" policy with Musharraf but that was shot to hell with the 9/11.

Musharraf is not going to Europe, he is going to the US of A since for the US of A democracy does not rank very high in the conditions to be one of their allies, Pakistan always been a traditional ally of the US of A and rarely been much of democracy.

Another thing Benazir Bhutto is not much different that Musharraf.

The danger is the Taliban take over because sudden you have Afghanistan II and one with nukes, of course before that happens you can be sure India and China will step in.

Karis Fra Mauro
12-27-2007, 11:03 AM
Well Pakistan is toast. Bhutto was corrupt but she was planning to finally end serfdom in the Northwest Frontier Province where all the extremists come from. The whole reason folks are blowing themselves up is they've been denied any political rights or freedoms in that area unlike the rest of Pakistan. Back to incompetence as usual, maybe things will fix themselves in the next generation.

KaiZX
12-27-2007, 12:22 PM
The Talibans had a "you do not bother us, we do not bother you" policy with Musharraf but that was shot to hell with the 9/11.

Musharraf is not going to Europe, he is going to the US of A since for the US of A democracy does not rank very high in the conditions to be one of their allies, Pakistan always been a traditional ally of the US of A and rarely been much of democracy.

Another thing Benazir Bhutto is not much different that Musharraf.

The danger is the Taliban take over because sudden you have Afghanistan II and one with nukes, of course before that happens you can be sure India and China will step in.

I can't speak for India, but I'm not sure I agree with your sentiments about China. It's almost certain that if the Taliban take over, that they will do something to ensure that the nukes aren't used. However, China's foreign policy lately has been a hands-off approach, as in "you don't bother us we don't bother you" thing that you talked about.

The country I am most worried about is the United States. Given how obsessed American politicians are with being the dominant influence in that region, I am almost certain that a Taliban take-over equals American involvement. After all, in the last eight years, the Bush administration has reignited a new Cold War, except now instead of the Soviet Union as our "enemy," we got Al Qaeda and Islamist "extremists" and Iran and all that.

bobuild01
12-27-2007, 01:34 PM
If I'm not mistaken, Musharraf has nothing to do with this. I mean, anyone with a little IQ and analytic capacity will know that killing a political rival who is more popular than you are just before campaigning isn't going to work wonders for your own popularity and credibility.

If anything, it's got to be those Al-Qaeda terrorists who will then capitalize on the social instability for their own agenda. After all, Musharraf has been "aiding" the US in hunting down Islamic terrorists within Pakistan.

Think about it, in this situation, Musharraf has everything to lose while the terrorists have everything to gain.

I'm not a Musharraf supporter or anything, but I can't shake the feeling that there's a malicious 3rd party involved in this mess.

Maybe even the Bush/CIA camp to further their grip in that part of the world and increase their war on terrorism? Of course it might be the Indian government to destabilize Pakastan even more and hopefuly(to them) regain the land stolen by the UN?

KaiZX
12-27-2007, 02:58 PM
Maybe even the Bush/CIA camp to further their grip in that part of the world and increase their war on terrorism? Of course it might be the Indian government to destabilize Pakastan even more and hopefuly(to them) regain the land stolen by the UN?

The India-Pakistan rivalry has seemingly died down in recent times, however, so that theory doesn't hold much water. As for the CIA, that's also unlikely. The Bush administration had been putting all their eggs in the Musharraf basket, and Bhutto is the person they've focused on for political reconciliation since Musharraf's "state of emergency" dilemma. Getting Bhutto to agree to share power with Musharraf is the one way that the "democracy" in Pakistan can be legitimized, so it would make no sense for the U.S. to kill her and make its own job harder.

Drakron
12-27-2007, 03:15 PM
"Stolen by the UN"

Kashmir is the disputed area and the only thing the UN did was cease fires, the whole things is supposed to be settled by a plebiscite under UN supervision but never happened.

De facto each claimant administrate the area they control, India have all the reasons to trust the UN since they were the ones asking for its intervention in the first place.

pandabuluk
12-27-2007, 05:24 PM
Shame on it. I do not know much about Pakistani problem. But what i can say that country will become 'hot', either just for weeks or forever.
Chance that Mussharaf masterminded Bhutto's dead rather slim i said. Even if he can held his power more longer, but in the end the instabilities will become too much for everyone handle. And who knows? Perhaps it was militant doing after all...

bobuild01
12-27-2007, 07:36 PM
Hmmm must be the history books I had to read in highschool and college had that and the other restructurings especially in the Jordanian area following WWII confused with reality. I have noticed a different view of history in more recent texts though, understandably.
Maybe I was thinking of the end of the Brittish imperialism era instead, sorry. I will have to look it up in loc.gov. for older texts.
Anyway whatever is happening there isn't good.

Those were my own biased views but since I heard about it the american media and government are focusing on the nukes more than the people there. This evening Bush said he would do "whatever was necessary" to make sure they(nukes) "did not fall into the wrong hands".

Hayeate
12-27-2007, 07:38 PM
Oh wow. And I thought it was the doing of some fundamentalist fucknut group who couldn't come to terms that a female plays a role in politics.

Of course, Mursharaff comes second in the suspect list, but even if he was behind the killing, it seems like he's really drove a dagger in his own side with it.

Kalimutan
12-28-2007, 03:56 AM
The deaths of millions are statistics but the death of a leader is a tragedy.

No one remembers the names of more than 100 people who got killed during a bombing at one of Bhutto's previous rallies but everyone remembers her death because she was an important person.

I hope the elections in Pakistan will fare better than Bhutto. I see why everyone is worried whether Pakistan with a nuclear arsenal will fall into the hands of some fanatical extremist islamic fundamentalists

pandabuluk
12-28-2007, 04:04 AM
Well... with Bhutto's death, it's only one candidate besides Mussharaf remains. Who is his name? Nazwar something, right? I really doubt if Mussharaf even let the election being held. Maybe he'll use this moment as excuse to halt that election. Oh yes, people and international watcher will be outraged, but who cares? As long he can sit in his comfortable chair of president, he'll do anything. But even that chair began to stabbing his butt...

bobuild01
12-28-2007, 05:32 AM
Elections are still being held on schedule so far, January 8, at least reported so on msnbc, cnn & fox cable news. Mussharaf stated yesterday the elections should proceed. One party has threatened to boycott but Bhuttos party hasn't and is scrambling to find an electable candidate. They couldn't have put all their eggs in one basket, or shouldn't have. Even her own party has some "fundamentalist fucknuts" in it.

Update:: CNN just reported than an Italian(?) newscaster has stated that an AlQueda cell has claimed responsibility. This is not verified yet though, so who really knows. BinLaden has made no comment accepting responsibility so far though, like he did soon after the trade center attack.

Damn, I am watching alleged Bhutto party supporters/members trashing parts of Pakistan, robbing banks and stores, burning busses and trains, attacking police, rioting and killing each other, on CNN right now. I understand they are grieving but why destroy the things that they supposedly were saying they wanted to protect? I don't understand why they would act like terrorists and defame her memory if their party was that good for their country. (personal interpretation of course)
Someone else can comment on the "coverup" started by the ministry of the interior just a few minutes ago(11:00 EST), probably to quell the situation a little.

17:20 EST. TMI right now on all the networks with each commentator adding their own two cents. After Clinton bashing the Pakistani people to get more free air time I had to switch to star trek voyager for a dose of sanity. In case she forgot, the US government told the whole world to mind its own business after both Kennedy killings and Martin Luther King also. Don't the Pakistani deserve the same respect?

Kresnik
12-28-2007, 08:18 AM
Heh, the last time I remember Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility of an attack is 9/11 which is a fake. The suspect list CIA released even got someone still alive and kicking, confused seeing himself on a suspect list with 'DEAD' status. Al-Qaeda is a cover for FBI/CIA to do their dirty work, so does bin Laden.

KaiZX
12-28-2007, 10:28 AM
Damn, I am watching alleged Bhutto party supporters/members trashing parts of Pakistan, robbing banks and stores, burning busses and trains, attacking police, rioting and killing each other, on CNN right now. I understand they are grieving but why destroy the things that they supposedly were saying they wanted to protect? I don't understand why they would act like terrorists and defame her memory if their party was that good for their country. (personal interpretation of course)
Someone else can comment on the "coverup" started by the ministry of the interior just a few minutes ago(11:00 EST), probably to quell the situation a little.

The problem is that the level of tension in countries like Pakistan and Iraq are so high, that almost any event can trigger a riot. Bhutto's death brings to light the huge divide in political and even religious ideologies held by different factions in Pakistan right now. I mean, in Pakistan, it was either you absolutely love Bhutto, or you absolutely hate her.

The unfortunate thing is that Pakistan does not have a stable political system and society, and Bhutto's supporters really have no way of venting their anger and grief other than through rioting. Ever since Musharraf's coup, there is no real sense of law and order and stability. And if those elements aren't there, then people don't have a mindset of peacefully organizing themselves to fight for something.

Violence is, after all, a much easier thing to do.

Psycho Mantis
12-29-2007, 04:43 PM
I think the Government killed her,the people know it also.There's some footage going around showing a cellphone film of her in her van,and a gun being pointed at and shot at her before the bomb went off.But the Government was quick to blame Al Quada.

MrWiseman
12-29-2007, 05:13 PM
Terrible. As if we hadn't had enough crazed islamofascist states, Pakistan turns into a worse shithole than it already was. I hope everybody with half a brain runs away from it because things are going to get very nasty. Probably, after a civil war that will never really end, Pakistan will turn into another country that follows that "religion of peace", which means all sorts of people will get murdered faster than you can grab porn in the Internet.

Of course, she was killed by the islamofascists. Which islamofascist? I don't care, they're all the same and need to die equally as fast. They can't bear to have a woman ruling a country, much less a moderate one that doesn't want to murder infidels, nuke India and turn Pakistan into another Iran. Therefore, she had to be killed.

Nobody in his right mind is thinks Musharraf did it; if he did, he'd be the biggest moron in the Universe, because now his reign is definitely over, and it's over in the worst case scenario: rioting and civil war.

Also, I don't think India is involved and did it because of India's Kashmir. The Indian region of Kashmir would be safer with Bhutto than it would be with the islamofascists, and again, nobody in his sane mind is going to try and critically destabilize a country with nukes and an assload of crazed, bloodthirsty, savage islamofascists.

bobuild01
12-30-2007, 07:43 AM
There's some footage going around showing a cellphone film of her in her van, and a gun being pointed at and shot at her before the bomb went off.
I have copied the one shown on the cable news(CNN) here and tried to look at it frame by frame in VDub and can see more than one shot but can't determine exactly when she might have been hit. Someone much better than me at video editing should be studying it, as I am sure they are. My interpertation right now is that she dropped or was pulled straight down instead of being thrust forward from a shot from behind. Of course cell phone footage doesn't have a good frame rate or definition and the placards in that video block a lot so I will have to wait for a different view which may or may not surface later.
Just a thought though, as stated ^^ she was hated by some or many of her countrymen and was accused of corruption during her reign as PM. She had stated many times that she would avenge her fathers death however she could. Might that include martyrdom? Example: deliberatley putting herself in extreme danger for that exact outcome. Her vehicle did stop very near the spot he was executed.
My thoughts or opinions are ONLY from my observations and interpertations of what we are allowed to see or read and not to be construed as reality.
Side note>> her husband and son are now co-leaders of their eliteist family run party.(credits CNN & Fox).

Drakron
12-30-2007, 10:13 AM
... Probably, after a civil war that will never really end, Pakistan will turn into another country that follows that "religion of peace", which means all sorts of people will get murdered faster than you can grab porn in the Internet.
...


Watch Gandhi, it explains quite well what happened with the British India or I can just spoil you and say the British played the religion card trying to keep their hold on India and that is why things are as they are.

Also its "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" and it been called that since the first military regime in 1956, also do you know one of the 3 nations that happened to recognize the Taliban government of Afghanistan? Pakistan and take a wild guess at who was PM? Benazir Bhutto.

Makes one wonder who is worst ... religious fanatics or corrupt politicians.

MrWiseman
12-30-2007, 11:58 AM
Watch Gandhi, it explains quite well what happened with the British India or I can just spoil you and say the British played the religion card trying to keep their hold on India and that is why things are as they are.So? I don't care for what the British did. That was long ago, the people who did it are probably dead, and I'm neither British nor Indian. I'm worried about the current state of affairs, which is somewhere south of nasty.

I knew about the official name. "Islamic Republic of" sounds like "We're islamofascists and we'll murder you all", but until a couple of months ago, Pakistan was less trouble than other islamofascist crapholes such as Iran.

Regarding Bhutto's recognition of the taliban, all islamic countries do all sorts of insane things every week (and this was a particularly asinine move on her part, being a woman), but I still think things would have been gone better with her, given that she, being a woman, was incompatible with the worst kinds of islamofascism.

Drakron
12-30-2007, 01:45 PM
So? I don't care for what the British did.
...


Sorry, you cannot play that card.


I knew about the official name. "Islamic Republic of" sounds like "We're islamofascists and we'll murder you all", but until a couple of months ago, Pakistan was less trouble than other islamofascist crapholes such as Iran.


That a load of crap.

Pakistan is the recruitment, training and indoctrination center of the Taliban so all the crap going on in Afghanistan can be linked to Pakistan.

Also I can point out Kashmir, the 1998 Wandhama massacre and Pakistan support to Islamic terrorist groups that operate in Kashmir and India.



Regarding Bhutto's recognition of the taliban, all islamic countries do all sorts of insane things every week (and this was a particularly asinine move on her part, being a woman), but I still think things would have been gone better with her, given that she, being a woman, was incompatible with the worst kinds of islamofascism.

Only 3 nations recognized then ... Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, two of then happen to be monarchies.

Besides you are making excuses, there is no question Bhutto helped the Taliban and the fact she was a women does not alter the fact she did NOTHING to help the Pakistan women that suffered of things as the "Hudood Ordinance" (enacted in 1979), heck that was finally repelled in 2006.

KaiZX
12-30-2007, 03:45 PM
Watch Gandhi, it explains quite well what happened with the British India or I can just spoil you and say the British played the religion card trying to keep their hold on India and that is why things are as they are.

Also its "Islamic Republic of Pakistan" and it been called that since the first military regime in 1956, also do you know one of the 3 nations that happened to recognize the Taliban government of Afghanistan? Pakistan and take a wild guess at who was PM? Benazir Bhutto.

Makes one wonder who is worst ... religious fanatics or corrupt politicians.

The sad thing is that, in that region of Asia, the history of politics in the late 20th to 21st century (aka. now) has been either fanaticism or corruption. Forget Pakistan for a second, and look at Cambodia. After the Vietnam War, it was first the Khmer Rouge and their bloody rampage, then it was corruption everywhere. Look at Thailand; same freakin' thing. Even China is the same today; bribery can get you a long way if you're in politics.

That said, in politics, you are choosing the lesser of two evils. And to be honest with you, I have always felt that corrupt politicians are still better than religious or political fanatics. Corrupt politicians are greedy, selfish, materialistic, and cares nothing for the people, but most of them are also cowards. It may disgust you to make deals with these people, but you can at least negotiate with them and pressure them.

Fanatics, on the other hand, are just insane. And it doesn't matter whether it's religious or political fanatics, because they're the same thing. What's the difference between the Khmer Rouge and the Taliban, other than that the Khmer Rouge are Communist and the Taliban are ultra-conservative Islamic? They employ the same ruthless tactics, they are all blood-thirsty, and they care for nothing except for their dogma and their power. But the worst thing is that they don't fear sacrificing lives (sometimes even their own) to get what they want. They don't fear outside pressure.

Drakron
12-30-2007, 05:29 PM
Well about that part of Asia ... welcome to post-colonialism, you are correct but keep in mind the reason things are that way is a lot due to interference of other governments.

You are talking about China but Rome was not build in a day you know, remember they moved from a absolute divine monarchy into "British rule" and then it devolved into warlords fighting for control of it with Japan helping breaking it apart ... as bad the Communist rule was and is at least there was stability and if you look at what crossed into Taiwan when they lost ... well not much different.

Perhaps the reason I say this is because there is a evolution to things, the USA did not started as it is now, not everyone was equal since women and slaves had not much of rights and before that there was many social revolutions in Europe... in many ways the things we see now are a unfortunate need for their societies to grow.

That is why I do not see Islamic as such a terrible thing, I realize the issues are social and not religious and what happens to then can happen in any place as long the same factors are present.

The issue with corrupt politicians is that the population simply do not take the responsibility ... democracy requires participation and when the population does not participate it leads to what we are seeing in most western nations, it was what lead to the rise of Fascism and we all seen the results of that.

There should be no such thing as picking the "lesser of two evils" when electing someone and the fact it does speaks volumes about the sad state of democracy.

As for the fanatics ... well it would be good if they were that way because they will end up killing themselves but Al Queda is simply fighting the only effective way it can in order to achieve its aims, they cannot win political or military (even in a domestic front since they know quite well what would happen, Iran is a fine example of that).

Also it certain does not help the fact we supported such groups when it was convenient, western nations used Islam against communism ... we also supported groups (like ETA) when the current government was not to the liking to cut then off when they lost their usefulness ... the difference of "Terrorist" and "Freedom Fighter" seems to be in were someone stands at a certain time and certain place.

MrWiseman
12-30-2007, 06:48 PM
Sorry, you cannot play that card.Why not? I genuinely don't care, as far as this issue goes. I may care outside it, but it's not relevant for my evaluation of the current situation.


Pakistan is the recruitment, training and indoctrination center of the Taliban so all the crap going on in Afghanistan can be linked to Pakistan.Like it's the only country breeding or training islamofascists. Last time I checked, there was a dozen of them. I said it was less trouble, I never said it was not serious trouble still.


Also I can point out Kashmir, the 1998 Wandhama massacre and Pakistan support to Islamic terrorist groups that operate in Kashmir and India.It's been 8 years since the big attack on the Indian region of Kashmir. Your point being? I know life sucks in the Indian region of Kashmir, but it was less of a notorious menace a few months ago.


Only 3 nations recognized then ... Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, two of then happen to be monarchies.Islamic countries will be islamic countries, regardless of their government system.

Once again, I'm not one to love Bhutto; Pakistan wouldn't even exist if it depended on me. But I'd rather have her than another Ali Khamenei's mini-me.


welcome to post-colonialismWelcome to finding excuses and blaming us for others' problems. Why do westerners feel guilty for what they didn't do? I don't give a damn about colonialism. All worthy countries who were ruined at the early 20th century got rich and nice, regardless of their situation, and ultimately, all countries had the same opportunities before they existed (actually, most of today's poor countries had much better natural resources than us).


the USA did not started as it is nowAgain, I don't care. Time flew at the same rate everywhere. Winners developed or are developing, losers didn't.


That is why I do not see Islamic as such a terrible thing, I realize the issues are social and not religious and what happens to then can happen in any place as long the same factors are present.Yet every islamic country happens to be a third world craphole, and few non-islamic countries outside Africa are. Bit of a coincidence there.

And yes, the USA's foreign policies are fucked up, folly and stupid. In the end, they'll pay.

SebastianvonKane
12-30-2007, 07:18 PM
As well as someone said, I don't care if you belive me but this somehow hurts me. Since I know what islam means by due of facts, I was expecting something like this to happen. I was following Bhutto's trajectory since she returned to Pakistan, and this turned to be a little shocking.

The so-called elctions to be held right there this January will no longer be to trust.

Call me selfish, but when she was killed some of my stocks really lost it's worth, so I think it can somehow affect some of us. Yet I have also came to think, somehow this is what Bhutto was envisioning, knowing it would end like that. USA was supporting her to return at expense of her life (known fact).

By the way, countries today worthy are falling to meet expectatives for the new century, so I do really care about what happens everywhere in the world.

bobuild01
12-31-2007, 08:00 AM
Musharraf and some clerics have stated that they would not block an autopsy but her family is adamently against anything which could let the truth be known. Religous ideology not withstanding that position speaks volumes to me. What are they hiding??

DK3411
12-31-2007, 09:41 AM
Because an autopsy might possibly reveal that she was already dead before the "assasination" took place, and that a suspicious burn mark on the skin suggests the shot may have been at point blank, meaning it was done by someone she knew and could get close to her.

I'm just speculating.

MrWiseman
12-31-2007, 05:56 PM
when she was killed some of my stocks really lost it's worth [...] By the way, countries today worthy are falling to meet expectatives for the new century, so I do really care about what happens everywhere in the world.I'd rather invest in perpetual motion machines than any islamofascist country.

pandabuluk
01-01-2008, 03:38 AM
Well... Now as Bhutto's death, her party (PPP) has officially select her son, forget his name, as leader, as Bhutto's own last wish. But as his son still attend college (oxford univ), and just at his 19, a council , compromised from some party elder and Bhutto's husband,will 'assist' him in leadership.
What i want to say is... it is alright to give a political party leadership to such a young figure? Even Kennedy was at his 40's when he hold his presidential title. And i afraid this young lad will just become a puppet of this council.

bobuild01
01-01-2008, 06:22 AM
Kennedy was 36(I think) when elected and BinLaden was just over 20 when he and his buds started the student union, precurser to the Taliban. He will probably be regarded as a figurehead, like Queen Elizibeth is, with no actual power. This is only to allow the Bhuttos to remain as the eliteist rulers of the party. Just a PR spin for right now.

SebastianvonKane
01-01-2008, 11:30 AM
Yeah, right.
Yet economy is so fragile and includes so many variants, no matter where you're investing, this facts will end up affecting your stocks (a bit complicated subject).

Right now Pakistan's Interior Ministry accepted that Bhutto's dead wasn't a hit in the head as he stated earlier.

Government may not be the crime's actual author, but I belive is covering something. About his son being PPP's Chairman, I wouldn't bet on anything about his ruling, but having his father as the co-chairman will turn him into an obvious political advisor.
Altough they may remain as the highest rulers in the party, they're going to be put in test anyway, otherwise people may feel deceived.

Much is to be written in the upcoming days.

pandabuluk
01-01-2008, 07:25 PM
Ah. The Election seems will be postponed. The Election Committe , principally, want to postponed the election, but final decision will be announce this day. Opposition and Uto's SA wants the Election kept held as planned, though.
One more thing. Before her death, Bhutto's want to announced the cheating plan at incoming election, who done by Intelligence and some insider at commitee. This being confirmed by Senator Latif Khosa from PPP, Bhutto's Party.
Either the last one is truth or just prop to gain sympathy. But seems the situation at Pakistan will not cooling down at meantime...

moonfire88
01-02-2008, 08:23 PM
I heard her son's speech that he made in Britain. I forgot the exact words; however, I distinctly remember the following: "...(something something)...Democracy is the best revenge!...(something, something)".

He'll be an interesting one to keep an eye on in the future. Personally I don't believe that democracy works; especially not in middle-eastern countries such as Iraq and Pakistan. Tribal cultures do not assimilate well to this form of government, history has taught as such, and yet we still try...

pandabuluk
01-02-2008, 11:46 PM
That's was his late mother words, if i remember correctly. His mother come back to Pakistan to revenge his grandfather (Benazir's father) by run the election. Yes, if people choose her rather than Mussharaf, that will be nice revenge, and legal by democrazy.

You got it. Maybe the better form of government that mid-eastern have is absolute monarchy. Sweep all the opposition. It might be not democratic, but at least stable enough to prosper the people there. Iraq before 1991 and Saddam fall's showed that.

Before gulf war 1 Iraq was one of prosperous country, and post gulf war 1, Saddam reign was stable enough, no conflict between sect.

Oh, one note. Election Comitee has announced that Election will be postponed. Rather like throwing TNT into a fire...

GarotoBH20
01-03-2008, 11:16 AM
That is another motive for conflict... I just hope they get to solve their problems without killing each other.

bobuild01
01-04-2008, 09:58 PM
Like I have said quite a few times the Bhutto party is NOT good for democracy or anything resembling that. They only want an aristocratic government with no rights for anyone but themselves. Any monarchy or dictatorship that did not include them would probably work very well in Pakistan, it did in the past and could again. They(the Bhuttos) were one of the most corrupt regmines in the last century and a lot of the Pakistani citizenry know that. Talking or taking revenge is not the right road. They would rather destroy their country if they can't control it. That doesn't sound like ANY democracy I have ever studied.
Don't forget that they support the Taliban financially and by hiding them in their districts.
Is Beizar Bhutto really dead? What is really in that coffin that they are so determined to hide? If she is dead did they martyr her themselves for their cause?
So many questions with no real answers.