Benazir Bhutto killed by suicide bomber
Archived77 replies · 3,733 views
johnny wrote: Bloody ell http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1298475,00.html
Bloody-fucking-'ell!
Just watched the news and this didn't even get a mention. 
Kevin Smith wrote: Shocking but not surprising. It's a great loss for Pakistan and democracy in general.
Agreed. Terrible news. RIP.
Breaking details say she was shot...head, neck and chest...
not that it really makes a difference...
Jeffari-al-Texani wrote: Breaking details say she was shot...head, neck and chest... not that it really makes a difference...
I dunno Jeff, may make a difference. A suicide bomber, meant almost anyone could be responsible. But my 1st thought on hearing the news was "Musharraf will be pleased.". A shooting makes his, or his underlings/henchman's, involvement seem more likely. Poor bloody woman, spends half her life under house arrest, and finally falls to an assassins bullets, and for what? For wanting (political) democracy (pity she couldn't make the leap to realising that without economic democracy political democracy is unachievable.) Still... R.I.P she deserved better.
Shouldn't went home in the first place... It's a dangerous life she's living there...
The killer just made her a heroine and made himself a villain...
Indeed!
Shocked. It's more than anything tells about the actual chaos that reigns in Pakiston now.
The entire region from Palestine to Iraq to Iran to Afganistan to Pakistan is fucked up.
it's not at all surprising, but still a shame.
she wasn't free from corruption, but she was certainly better than what they have now under musharraf.
Funny how Western leaders are now back to being friendly with Musharraf, after condemning him only weeks ago.
Looks like a state sponsored plan worked to me....
But lets blame it on Al Qaeda or the Taliban.
Security analysts quoting the Political rhetoric that's in the Press is quite.. nauseatin.
Politics. Poverty. Military rule. Cyclical in Pakistan. Power, Corruption and Lies. No matter how they're banging on the Urban Cntre has the $ and the rest of the Country has the numbers.
Says the Islamic Extremists have very little to gain in carrying out the assassination.
That there'd be no Logic in doing so. Logic?! so in theory until proved it's the Military being blamed. Sorry, the Car's sunroof and at least three Bullet shots.
the country is just getting worse to go to, one of the few countries now on my list not to go to if i wanna live a long life, israel and lebanon, with along with n. korea, syria, iran, iraq and afghanistan.....
Like a friend of mine said TODAY, Americans have to bring another Hussein to power in Iraq to stabilize the region. Only such types of politicians (like Musharaff) can handle those countries. Though Iraq was screwed up from the beginning by the British.
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Like a friend of mine said TODAY, Americans have to bring another Hussein to power in Iraq to stabilize the region. Only such types of politicians (like Musharaff) can handle those countries. Though Iraq was screwed up from the beginning by the British.
.... and Russia needs another Stalin. Putin and democracy just aren't working are they. Oh Dear.
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Like a friend of mine said TODAY, Americans have to bring another Hussein to power in Iraq to stabilize the region. Only such types of politicians (like Musharaff) can handle those countries. Though Iraq was screwed up from the beginning by the British.
Thats a very harsh view of Musharraf. Compared to Hussein, he is St Francis of Assisi. Problem is and has always been you cant run the country and the army at the same time. He was running the cricket team until recently too, and ironically they got worse after he stopped.
Big problem for Bush now, in that having declared he wants him out in favour of Bhutto (more or less), he now has to throw his weight back behind him, as the alternatives are far more scary. Bush keeps pushing for democracy in a country with a high radical Muslim population, parts of which are lawless and ungoverned. And they've got Nukes. Never quite understood why things are turning on Musharraf in favour of democracy, but with Bhutto gone, I'm sure things will go quiet on that front.
Rumour has it, (I heard it in pub off a Reuters bloke, so it must be true
), that the Taliban and Al Qaeda are so enraged at having the blame pinned on them, that they are going to release statements of denial (which is very rare for them), so I'm taking it they did f'all.
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Though Iraq was screwed up from the beginning by the British.
A sweeping statement there. A little bit of truth in it, as we did create Iraq, but the biggest contributory factor to us pulling out in 1947 and the rest of our empire was the crippling reparations payments following WWII. Truman was a hard bastard. That is, most definitely, another argument though.
Burt Reynolds wrote: Big problem for Bush now, in that having declared he wants him out in favour of Bhutto (more or less), he now has to throw his weight back behind him, as the alternatives are far more scary. Bush keeps pushing for democracy in a country with a high radical Muslim population, parts of which are lawless and ungoverned.
And they've got Nukes. Never quite understood why things are turning on Musharraf in favour of democracy, but with Bhutto gone, I'm sure things will go quiet on that front.
Rumour has it, (I heard it in pub off a Reuters bloke, so it must be true
The Nuclear part is a Head- ache.
The Last part is quite Funny.
The official line from Pakistan is now that she bumped her head on her car roof. So are they going to try to say that her death was suicide?
NOOLigan wrote:
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Like a friend of mine said TODAY, Americans have to bring another Hussein to power in Iraq to stabilize the region. Only such types of politicians (like Musharaff) can handle those countries. Though Iraq was screwed up from the beginning by the British.
.... and Russia needs another Stalin. Putin and democracy just aren't working are they. Oh Dear.
Every country passes through its own stages of political development at different pace. At this stage of civic development, Putin suits Russia well, like no one else would. The countries over there, especially with ethnic issues, still need authoritarian rulers.
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: ... The countries over there, especially with ethnic issues, still need authoritarian rulers.
Aye, bring back the Divine Right of Kings for the ignorant foreigners "over there." Another Xerxes or Saladin that's the answer!
Arrghhhhhhhh!
& &
& &
& &
Ow! My poor fucking head!
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:
NOOLigan wrote:
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Like a friend of mine said TODAY, Americans have to bring another Hussein to power in Iraq to stabilize the region. Only such types of politicians (like Musharaff) can handle those countries. Though Iraq was screwed up from the beginning by the British.
.... and Russia needs another Stalin. Putin and democracy just aren't working are they. Oh Dear.
Every country passes through its own stages of political development at different pace. At this stage of civic development, Putin suits Russia well, like no one else would. The countries over there, especially with ethnic issues, still need authoritarian rulers.
Ian, you have missed my point. My point was that Russia has proved that it can operate as a democracy, well sort of a democracy, and it used to be said that it too needed a dictator in charge.
"Those counties" as Mimx has pointed out is a racist view. Just look next door to Pakistan. India is the largest democracy in the world and don't tell me that they don't have greater ethnic and religious minorities than Pakistan.
I won't even mention the shared heritage and history of Pakistan and India. No I don't need a history lesson of the post colonial creation of both.
It is true that some counties are are artificial creations and probably should not exist in their current form as they cut across ethnic and religious boundaries. Well that's the post colonial legacy. Iraq and several African states come to mind here. Pakistan however isn't one of these states.
NOOLigan wrote:
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote:
NOOLigan wrote:
|| | ||| 6217|| 8 || 3 wrote: Like a friend of mine said TODAY, Americans have to bring another Hussein to power in Iraq to stabilize the region. Only such types of politicians (like Musharaff) can handle those countries. Though Iraq was screwed up from the beginning by the British.
.... and Russia needs another Stalin. Putin and democracy just aren't working are they. Oh Dear.
Every country passes through its own stages of political development at different pace. At this stage of civic development, Putin suits Russia well, like no one else would. The countries over there, especially with ethnic issues, still need authoritarian rulers.
Ian, you have missed my point. My point was that Russia has proved that it can operate as a democracy, well sort of a democracy, and it used to be said that it too needed a dictator in charge.
Those counties as Mimx has pointed out is a racist view. Just look next door to Pakistan. India is the largest democracy in the world and don't tell me that they don't have greater ethnic and religious minorities than Pakistan.
I won't even mention the shared heritage and history of Pakistan and India. No I don't need a history lesson of the post colonial creation of both.
It is true that some counties are are artificial creations and probably should not exist in their current form as they cut across ethnic and religious boundaries. Well that's the post colonial legacy. Iraq and several African states come to mind here. Pakistan however isn't one of these states.
Not to go deeper, I'll point at only one factor: radical islamist movements. Even "peaceful" India could run amok if there would be enough of that factor. Gee, it was a very wise move to separate India and Pakistan.
Hence my view. Not because these people don't "deserve" democracy or a better life, but because they haven't solved their religious issues that still fire up the region. I don't want a country with weak democracy, militant islamism and nuclear weapon together. It's simply a greater risque for everybody.
The same for Africa. Most "countries" there hadn't have political and civic culture. Nevertheless, they were left to govern vast territories without any culture of political or economical development. They moved in palaces, established embassies, received the newest weapons as well as pointless development program funds, and the rest is history.
