Benazir Bhutto Assassinated (yet another sad day for democracy)

[B_Italian1]

Heartbreaking to say the least.

 

[naughty]

Which one? All three were assassinated.

There are aspects of all three that are applicable.

 

[Osiris]

When I heard this while I was getting ready.... I just stared at my mom.
We both just shook our heads.. after about 5 minutes turned off the TV.

1 step forward 10 steps back.

A tragedy none the less, but let's look at the flip side a minute.

You're being spun people! Wake Up!​

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:​

Bhutto was the west's puppet-in-waiting. This is one of those times I wish people would read my long posts. :cry: Some have, others have not.​

I tried to make it clear in the OP, without being disrespectful, that Bhutto was not as pure as the driven snow. What you may be failing to see is that she represented, both to the west and much of free thinking Pakistan itself, an opportunity. An opportunity to decide, a process, taking a step towards freedom. No politician is entirely clean - hell Clinton was as dirty as they come in some ways, but he still did great things for the US and made some alright moves on the world stage too. A lot of people are paying their respects without political comment, some people are possibly disagreeing with you. I am saying that the country of Pakistan has been dealt a fierce injury with this assassination - that is the main cause of my grief. I regret a living, breathing human died as well - I feel for those that loved her. But mainly I am in mourning for the opportunity for Pakistan that she symbolised and concerned about the fear and confusion that will taint the already difficult elections as a result of today's events.

You both are right and I should know better than to blindly accept my media outlets. I'VE even said this a thousand times.

I have read this entire thread with great interest. I am still a bit shocked at the turn of events- shocked but not surprised.

Orisis- I am willing to bet anything that President Musharraf had nothing to do with this. Having met they guy on atleast 4 occassions, he is a very smart and intelligent man. He fully realizes that he has the most to loose because of this- every politician and their brother in Pakistan is going to blame him for this. Even though he would have hated to ceede power to anyone, when push came to shove he would have vastly preferred to share power with Bhutto than Sharif- or anyone else for that matter. There was some meeting on the minds there, whereas with Sharif there is none. Musharraf is playing the game and doing what he has to for power and now with this tragic event, Musharraf in power is seemingly what is in everyones best interest.

I talked to the station and they have been getting reaction from Pakistanis in the Middle East regarding the assisination and the views Jason posted were spot on. Ordinary Pakistanis may be upset about this tactic but are in no way mourning the death of the actual person. Everyone seems to agree that they corruption charges against her were justified. She was nowhere near the beloved "darling of the masses" that she liked to portray herself as.

The biggest loser in all of this as usual will be Pakistan itself and that is what is remarkably sad. Like with Iraq and Afghanistan we try to impose democracy on a people where democracy does not work. It is a matter of public knowledge that any progress that Pakistan has made as a country is during periods of military rule and not democracy. I am afraid that politicans in Pakistan are going to manipulate this event to gather support for themselves- support that always comes at the expense of innocent lives in that part of the world.

Rubi, you have posted some really insightful and though provoking things in this thread.

Thanks for the true view from the area. I'm hearing all this and have to wonder is politics in Pakistan so overtly corrupt? Has it seen none corruption in our time?

And Jason? You mentioned Bhutto was a supporter of the Taliban. Was this recent or was she a supporter of them, like the US was at first, because they aided in driving Russia from Afghanistan?

I'll be doing a lot of reading up today I fear. :wink:

 

[Drifterwood]

Don't forget to follow the $$$ my friend. Pakistan is a microcosm of US economic imperialism.

 

[PussyWellington]

You're being spun people! Wake Up!


:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

Bhutto was the west's puppet-in-waiting. This is one of those times I wish people would read my long posts. :cry: Some have, others have not.
​

I disagree with you. She was fighting for soverignty of her nation. Nothing happens by accident in politics. It is my belief that she was assassinated by British SIS - not Al-Qaeda.

 

[B_Nick4444]

Who benefits?

 

[Drifterwood]

Perhaps you mean SAS.

Jeez - move away from the bottle.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Perhaps you mean SAS.

Jeez - move away from the bottle.

I thought it was a bizarre reference to Princess Anne

(you were kidding right?)

 

[Time2Talk]

Democracy is the greatest threat to militancy. I am sorry that her family has been hit with another tragedy as much as I am sorry for her country, which will now almost certainly descend into some form of complete chaos.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Don't forget to follow the $$$ my friend. Pakistan is a microcosm of US economic imperialism.

Now what does this really tell us, my dear Drifter?
Is it always the money?
Why not power? Fanaticism? Misogyny? The rage of the displaced Old Boys' Club?

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

You're being spun people! Wake Up!​

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:​

Bhutto was the west's puppet-in-waiting. This is one of those times I wish people would read my long posts. :cry: Some have, others have not.​

You exaggerate her flaws, Jason.
And flaws and all, she was still getting more than 50 percent of voter support in polls.
You've suggested she and hubby took $1 b when they fled Pakistan. I haven't seen a figure anywhere near that high.
But venality is more or less a ticket of admission to the higher levels of Pakistani politics. It's a jungle, and the tranquilized tigers die.
The fact is ... and you too easily forget this, in my opinion ... she had little to gain by returning to Pakistan. She knew there was a better than even chance she would be killed ... and of course, she was.
So I take her quite at her word when she said that her motive was the re-establishment of democracy.
She believed Pakistan and other Muslim nations must make their peace with modernity. Did this make her the west's puppet-in-waiting? I hope not, because modernity ain't going away.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

In the latest of his foreign policy gaffes, US Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee makes a lame attempt to capture votes by linking the Bhutto assassination to illegal immigration in the US:

"The immigration issue is not so much about people coming to pick lettuce or make beds, it's about people who could come with a shoulder-fired missile and could do serious damage and harm to us," Huckabee said, "and that's what we need to be worried about."​

More of the story at:

CNN.com

 

[2322]

The army assassinated her.

Rawalpindi is the center of the armed forces. Her death in the same park in which her father was executed by the army sends a message. It also explains why Musharraf didn't give her the security she needed; he was pressured not to despite the fact it would hurt him. It also explains why we've had such a completely ridiculous about-face on the cause of her death. If she was murdered then she's martyred. If she bumped her head then she died from an accident and she's not a martyr. Not even a witch doctor would declare she was shot twice and then declare she was not shot at all. No, somebody got the story changed... after she was buried.

Bhutto was not friendly to the army during either of her previous terms and I believe the army wants to hold on to power no matter what. For now, Musharraf serves their purpose as he led the coup that brought them to power and he understands how the power structure works. He may not have ordered her death but he was complicit.

The military does not believe that a democratic government can keep control of the country. The north is just too powerful. Yet nor can they ignore outside pressure to cooperate. Musharraf has to play both sides of the coin, simultaneously pleasing the US and the army but when push comes to shove, he has to play by the army's rules or be suddenly assassinated. The military wants to keep the north peaceful. Were they to actually go after al Qaeda the north would rise up in revolt. As it is they've passed information to al Qaeda to help keep them out of American gunsights. The military is assisted in this by the Pakistani secret police, the SIS, which is known to have al Qaeda sympathizers within it. There is no debate in this. While the army denies it, it's an open secret that the leadership of the Taliban and al Qaeda are in Pakistan.

The military is in a tough position. They don't dare risk civil war by actually cracking-down on the Taliban or al Qaeda as both organizations have too much popular support; more support than the civil government of Pakistan has. Yet the south of Pakistan, westernized and modern, loathe their northern neighbors and demand the military do what they're supposed to by controlling the region. Then there is the outside pressure of the US and the rest of the world who are demanding that action against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

I do not believe there is a simple answer to this until either the secular south or tribal north rise up, or the US and others invade, and overthrow the government.

You exaggerate her flaws, Jason.
And flaws and all, she was still getting more than 50 percent of voter support in polls.
You've suggested she and hubby took $1 b when they fled Pakistan. I haven't seen a figure anywhere near that high.
But venality is more or less a ticket of admission to the higher levels of Pakistani politics. It's a jungle, and the tranquilized tigers die.
The fact is ... and you too easily forget this, in my opinion ... she had little to gain by returning to Pakistan. She knew there was a better than even chance she would be killed ... and of course, she was.
So I take her quite at her word when she said that her motive was the re-establishment of democracy.
She believed Pakistan and other Muslim nations must make their peace with modernity. Did this make her the west's puppet-in-waiting? I hope not, because modernity ain't going away.

I don't think so. The opinions I've heard and read from Pakistanis themselves basically confirm that it was the choice between two devils. Bhutto had a lot of people to please, a lot of assets to save, and the backing of the United States and the west. She wanted back in power because once you've had it you'll always want it. Nothing is more addictive. I think she believed that she would be a better choice than Musharraf and likely would have instituted some reforms, but she was willing to play ball with Musharraf, allowing him to be president while she was prime minister and pardoning him for being a tyrant. That isn't all that ethical to me. It's pragmatic, but not ethical.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

The army assassinated her.

Rawalpindi is the center of the armed forces. Her death in the same park in which her father was executed by the army sends a message. It also explains why Musharraf didn't give her the security she needed; he was pressured not to despite the fact it would hurt him. It also explains why we've had such a completely ridiculous about-face on the cause of her death. If she was murdered then she's martyred. If she bumped her head then she died from an accident and she's not a martyr. Not even a witch doctor would declare she was shot twice and then declare she was not shot at all. No, somebody got the story changed... after she was buried.

Bhutto was not friendly to the army during either of her previous terms and I believe the army wants to hold on to power no matter what. For now, Musharraf serves their purpose as he led the coup that brought them to power and he understands how the power structure works. He may not have ordered her death but he was complicit.

Her father was executed nearby, but not in the same park. It was the first Pakistani PM, Liaquat Ali Khan, who was also assassinated in that park.

There is some contention about how much security Musharraf gave her. If it was as inadequate as some reports hold, then one could agree with you that he was complicit in her assassination.

As for the varying accounts of the cause of her death, indeed, it is puzzling how many we have heard. However, the last account, which has her suffering a fatal skull fracture, does not mean she was not martyred. As the Interior Minister said, "Bhutto was killed when she tried to duck back into the vehicle, and the shock waves from the blast knocked her head into a lever attached to the sunroof, fracturing her skull." This would not, I don't think, compromise claims of martyrdom.

Bhutto indeed was on bad terms with the army during her earlier stints in power. That is not by itself proof that they killed her.

Bhutto herself had named several extremist organizations that had set plans in place to kill her, and several have claimed responsibility.

The military does not believe that a democratic government can keep control of the country. The north is just too powerful. Yet nor can they ignore outside pressure to cooperate. Musharraf has to play both sides of the coin, simultaneously pleasing the US and the army but when push comes to shove, he has to play by the army's rules or be suddenly assassinated. The military wants to keep the north peaceful. Were they to actually go after al Qaeda the north would rise up in revolt. As it is they've passed information to al Qaeda to help keep them out of American gunsights. The military is assisted in this by the Pakistani secret police, the SIS, which is known to have al Qaeda sympathizers within it. There is no debate in this. While the army denies it, it's an open secret that the leadership of the Taliban and al Qaeda are in Pakistan.

The point being?

The military is in a tough position. They don't dare risk civil war by actually cracking-down on the Taliban or al Qaeda as both organizations have too much popular support; more support than the civil government of Pakistan has. Yet the south of Pakistan, westernized and modern, loathe their northern neighbors and demand the military do what they're supposed to by controlling the region. Then there is the outside pressure of the US and the rest of the world who are demanding that action against the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Yes, it seems like two countries in one constricting skin.

I do not believe there is a simple answer to this until either the secular south or tribal north rise up, or the US and others invade, and overthrow the government.

Which is to say, There are no simple answers.

I don't think so. The opinions I've heard and read from Pakistanis themselves basically confirm that it was the choice between two devils. Bhutto had a lot of people to please, a lot of assets to save, and the backing of the United States and the west. She wanted back in power because once you've had it you'll always want it. Nothing is more addictive. I think she believed that she would be a better choice than Musharraf and likely would have instituted some reforms, but she was willing to play ball with Musharraf, allowing him to be president while she was prime minister and pardoning him for being a tyrant. That isn't all that ethical to me. It's pragmatic, but not ethical.

You cannot know why Bhutto wanted back in power.
It was indeed a choice between two devils, but all indications are that Pakistanis were going to choose Bhutto.
Had she not played ball with Musharraf, she would not even have been allowed back into the country to contest the election.
Of course, she was being pragmatic in all her recent machinations with Musharraf, but was that unethical? If the greatest good was the reinstitution of true democracy, then the worth of her end might have been much greater than the (compromised) means.
We shouldn't let the best be the enemy of the good. No one benefits.

 

[dalibor]

I can't help but notice that the Pakistani people seem to be highly volatile and irrational. The mob seems to be a constant in their society -- swarms of people are whipped into a frenzy all the time (not just over this assassination) it seems. What is it in the culture that makes people so out of control? I know there is frustration with poverty and lack of freedom and religious insanity -- but there seems to be a cultural propensity for chaos.
Is this an unfair judgment?

 

[2322]

Gail Sheehy was interviewed on CNN tonight. She knew Bhutto well, actually spent time with her as friends in her homes, not just on an official level as our politicians who claim to know her have done. She said that Bhutto felt this was her destiny. Her family, particularly her father, groomed her for leading Pakistan. As Sheehy stated, "she lived to regain power." Bhutto felt she had an expectation to fulfill and that now was the time as she had the US brokering her return to Pakistan.

Your utilitarian view of the ethical situation she faced is likely the same view she took and that's fine if you espouse utilitarian ethics.

A former CIA analyst on CNN spoke about the alleged accident with the sunroof. He mentioned that it does indeed make a difference how her death occurred in the eyes of the people of Pakistan. They would differentiate the manner of her death. Apparently there are strict rules of martyrdom and to fulfill the role of martyr she would have to die directly by the hand of an assassin. Fortunately the people of Pakistan aren't stupid and the horse has already left not only the barn but the farm entirely. Everyone knows she was shot and there is eyewitness testimony of a sniper firing from the roof of a nearby building. As another analyst pointed out, there was no autopsy and her husband, already in trouble with the Pakistani government, possibly declined an autopsy in return for government forgiveness. The reason to do so was that if the bullets used were armor-piercing then it would mean that it was a military hit as that type of ammunition is unavailable in Pakistan outside of the military. Others have noted that the man who fired at her in the crowd was well-trained and the pistol he used appears to have been the same type of pistol issued in the Pakistani military.

The security was clearly inadequate as she was assassinated. She had one security person assigned to her, another woman, and a partially armored vehicle. There was nothing else. When she returned to Pakistan she was assured of receiving the same security Musharraf would have as Pakistan law states that former prime ministers are entitled to the same security as existing prime ministers. She did not have that by any means and complained about it as soon as she arrived back in the country. Her party made an official protest and they were arranging their own security for her beginning next week as it seemed the government was unwilling to provide her with the security to which she was entitled.

The point of my paragraph on the military was to establish motive for her assassination despite the fact that it would result in damage to Musharraf, one of their own. He'll take the heat for the military's actions.

Extremists, including al Qaeda, operate openly in Pakistan. The military does nothing because the military has many people sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Some experts have gone so far to state that the Pakistani military is essentially sympathetic to the Taliban and therefore playing both sides of the same coin. If that's the case then Bhutto never had a chance and we're heading for war with Pakistan unless the US makes some radical changes in its foreign policy.

 

[lostmymind]

I can't help but notice that the Pakistani people seem to be highly volatile and irrational. The mob seems to be a constant in their society -- swarms of people are whipped into a frenzy all the time (not just over this assassination) it seems. What is it in the culture that makes people so out of control? I know there is frustration with poverty and lack of freedom and religious insanity -- but there seems to be a cultural propensity for chaos.
Is this an unfair judgment?

Travel to some of these areas and you'll understand. The majority of the population of our planet is grossly impoverished, uneducated, and disenfranchised. They live in a tribal mentality for which 'democracy' has no meaning. They only respect and respond to certain 'personalities' that represent power structures. Bhutto was one of these 'personalities' and there's now a vacuum that can't be filled. The response is total despair which manifests itself in violence and chaos because there are no other viable actions of expression.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Gail Sheehy was interviewed on CNN tonight. She knew Bhutto well, actually spent time with her as friends in her homes, not just on an official level as our politicians who claim to know her have done. She said that Bhutto felt this was her destiny. Her family, particularly her father, groomed her for leading Pakistan. As Sheehy stated, "she lived to regain power." Bhutto felt she had an expectation to fulfill and that now was the time as she had the US brokering her return to Pakistan.

This is stated quite openly in her autobiography. It's not different from
Winston Churchill having a lifelong sense that his destiny was to lead Britain. But Bhutto, like Churchill, believed she had important things to accomplish for the country ... and many Pakistanis agreed with her. Hence, the remarkable display of grief.

Your utilitarian view of the ethical situation she faced is likely the same view she took and that's fine if you espouse utilitarian ethics.

If she established a true democracy, then you could also make an argument from justice that her return was ethically justified. Whether she was likely to achieve that is, of course, debatable.

A former CIA analyst on CNN spoke about the alleged accident with the sunroof. He mentioned that it does indeed make a difference how her death occurred in the eyes of the people of Pakistan. They would differentiate the manner of her death. Apparently there are strict rules of martyrdom and to fulfill the role of martyr she would have to die directly by the hand of an assassin. Fortunately the people of Pakistan aren't stupid and the horse has already left not only the barn but the farm entirely. Everyone knows she was shot and there is eyewitness testimony of a sniper firing from the roof of a nearby building.

Perhaps it would make a difference on a very strict Muslim interpretation; I don't know. The cause of death that the government is now speaking of sounds pretty direct to me. To most Pakistanis, she would have been martyred; indeed, they have been throwing the word around a great deal.
If this does not gain her the martyr's crown from very strict Muslims, she was never hoping to get their support in any great measure anyway.

As another analyst pointed out, there was no autopsy and her husband, already in trouble with the Pakistani government, possibly declined an autopsy in return for government forgiveness. The reason to do so was that if the bullets used were armor-piercing then it would mean that it was a military hit as that type of ammunition is unavailable in Pakistan outside of the military. Others have noted that the man who fired at her in the crowd was well-trained and the pistol he used appears to have been the same type of pistol issued in the Pakistani military.

Guns of all sorts are very widely available in Pakistan. I saw shops in Peshawar where machine guns were freely on offer.
I have no idea how available military ammunition is, but I wouldn't doubt that it is surprisingly available. In any case, rogue elements in the military did oppose her, as you go on to argue, so Islamist opponents of Bhutto could easily have gotten such ammunition, even if its distribution normally happens to be relatively restricted.

The security was clearly inadequate as she was assassinated.

Not that simple. As President Kennedy said, if anyone really wanted to kill you, they could find a high building and shoot from there. Of course he turned out to be right.

She had one security person assigned to her, another woman, and a partially armored vehicle. There was nothing else. When she returned to Pakistan she was assured of receiving the same security Musharraf would have as Pakistan law states that former prime ministers are entitled to the same security as existing prime ministers. She did not have that by any means and complained about it as soon as she arrived back in the country. Her party made an official protest and they were arranging their own security for her beginning next week as it seemed the government was unwilling to provide her with the security to which she was entitled.

The point of my paragraph on the military was to establish motive for her assassination despite the fact that it would result in damage to Musharraf, one of their own. He'll take the heat for the military's actions.

This is among the possibilities. But you asserted that "the army assassinated her." The idea that they provided inadequate security falls far short of that claim.

Extremists, including al Qaeda, operate openly in Pakistan. The military does nothing because the military has many people sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda. Some experts have gone so far to state that the Pakistani military is essentially sympathetic to the Taliban and therefore playing both sides of the same coin. If that's the case then Bhutto never had a chance and we're heading for war with Pakistan unless the US makes some radical changes in its foreign policy.

Well, whether they're "essentially sympathetic" to the extremists or merely have rogue elements, one has to say that the assassination seemed utterly predictable before she returned, and quite inevitable after the first deadly blast on the night of her return that killed 150 people.
The question Whodunnit? is still radically open.

 

[pycoh567]

I think we are responsible. We should not try to implement democracy on other countries. You cannot force people to be like us. Everyone is different.We need to look at ourselves to realize that we are responsible and those secretly in power. This whole war on terror is nothing but a game that me, you, and everyone in the world are playing for the entertainment of those in the wealthy class.

I think in the future, we will all be literally fighting for our survival once we see the true enemy emerge. I am not speaking of terrorists by the way. I will see you guys in 2008, the years are getting closer to the emergence of the real threat at hand.Are you a sheep(typical human being) or a warrior fighting for the real cause.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

^^ Holy FUCK! ^^