Full Version: Benazir Bhutto Assassinated in Suicide Attack
Benazir Bhutto Assassinated
What will be the biggest long-term affect of the assassination be on the political scene of Pakistan?
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
QUOTE
Pakistan's former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was assassinated Thursday after addressing a large gathering of her supporters.
The bomb explodes near Bhutto's vehicle following a political rally in Rawalpindi.
1 of 4 more photos » Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck, the Pakistani Interior Ministry said. The attacker then blew himself up. The bomb attack killed at least 22 others, doctors said.
Video of the scene just moments before the explosion showed Bhutto stepping into a heavily guarded vehicle to leave the rally.
John Moore, a photographer for Getty Images, said Bhutto was standing through the sunroof of her vehicle, waving to supporters, when two shots rang out.
Bhutto fell back into the vehicle, and almost immediately a bomb blast rocked the scene, sending twisting metal and shrapnel into the crowd, he added.
Police sources told CNN the bomber, who was riding a motorcycle, blew himself up near Bhutto's vehicle.
The bomb explodes near Bhutto's vehicle following a political rally in Rawalpindi.
1 of 4 more photos » Bhutto died of a gunshot wound to the neck, the Pakistani Interior Ministry said. The attacker then blew himself up. The bomb attack killed at least 22 others, doctors said.
Video of the scene just moments before the explosion showed Bhutto stepping into a heavily guarded vehicle to leave the rally.
John Moore, a photographer for Getty Images, said Bhutto was standing through the sunroof of her vehicle, waving to supporters, when two shots rang out.
Bhutto fell back into the vehicle, and almost immediately a bomb blast rocked the scene, sending twisting metal and shrapnel into the crowd, he added.
Police sources told CNN the bomber, who was riding a motorcycle, blew himself up near Bhutto's vehicle.
What will be the biggest long-term affect of the assassination be on the political scene of Pakistan?
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
The neocons will hold a hand to their foreheads and appear to pass out, imitating shock that another Bhutto was assassinated.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
There won't be a revolution following Benazir's assassination. Lebanon prospered under Hariri. Pakistan was rocked by corruption scandals under Benazir. She was appealing money-laundering charges in Swiss court and corruption cases in Spain and Britain were ongoing. Interpol issued a red notice for Benazir and her husband, Asif, last year. She maintained it was all a political witch hunt.
Hariri's assassination sparked a nationalist movement in Lebanon. Pakistan is fractured along tribal lines, fractured more so than Lebanon is along sectarian lines. This isn't an "outsider" whacking a former PM. It's (likely) one of their own.
Real grassroots democratic activists regard Benazir as part of the problem and it will be in the White House's interest to ignore the contention between "established" politicians willing to work with us and activists rounded up during Musharraf's emergency decree that weren't afforded their own news release, enjoyed house arrest surrounded by their friends, etc., and actually face charges for supporting the country's highest court. Benazir's government was one of three on earth that recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government yet to hear her speak democracy would fail without her back in power. The coziness between her and Musharraf (she asked him to bypass the courts and drop corruption charges against her in Pakistan; her brother, Mir, faced and defeated every corruption charge while she was PM, only to be assassinated a few years later) stank to high heaven.
Benazir may do more for democracy as a dead martyr from the U.S.'s view as a tragic figure requiring our intervention than she ever would do for Pakistan as a living politician.
The neocons will hold a hand to their foreheads and appear to pass out, imitating shock that another Bhutto was assassinated.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
There won't be a revolution following Benazir's assassination. Lebanon prospered under Hariri. Pakistan was rocked by corruption scandals under Benazir. She was appealing money-laundering charges in Swiss court and corruption cases in Spain and Britain were ongoing. Interpol issued a red notice for Benazir and her husband, Asif, last year. She maintained it was all a political witch hunt.
Hariri's assassination sparked a nationalist movement in Lebanon. Pakistan is fractured along tribal lines, fractured more so than Lebanon is along sectarian lines. This isn't an "outsider" whacking a former PM. It's (likely) one of their own.
Real grassroots democratic activists regard Benazir as part of the problem and it will be in the White House's interest to ignore the contention between "established" politicians willing to work with us and activists rounded up during Musharraf's emergency decree that weren't afforded their own news release, enjoyed house arrest surrounded by their friends, etc., and actually face charges for supporting the country's highest court. Benazir's government was one of three on earth that recognized the Taliban as Afghanistan's legitimate government yet to hear her speak democracy would fail without her back in power. The coziness between her and Musharraf (she asked him to bypass the courts and drop corruption charges against her in Pakistan; her brother, Mir, faced and defeated every corruption charge while she was PM, only to be assassinated a few years later) stank to high heaven.
Benazir may do more for democracy as a dead martyr from the U.S.'s view as a tragic figure requiring our intervention than she ever would do for Pakistan as a living politician.
What will be the biggest long-term affect of the assassination be on the political scene of Pakistan?
The long term effect will be business as usual because the power structure will maintain their strength over the people just as the power structure has maintained throughout history. There will be no change.
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
We've seen it already; Musharraf will feign sympathy in hopes of minimizing the outrage. Democracy will be frozen. People will riot. Widespread protests will be ongoing. Same old, same old.
Bhutto represented women and the poor, so she was killed by the machinations of rich men. She was a threat to the power structure and as such had to be killed for the prosperity of power. It is history repeating itself all over again.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
They will, but the power structure will squash the uprising...as always.
The long term effect will be business as usual because the power structure will maintain their strength over the people just as the power structure has maintained throughout history. There will be no change.
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
We've seen it already; Musharraf will feign sympathy in hopes of minimizing the outrage. Democracy will be frozen. People will riot. Widespread protests will be ongoing. Same old, same old.
Bhutto represented women and the poor, so she was killed by the machinations of rich men. She was a threat to the power structure and as such had to be killed for the prosperity of power. It is history repeating itself all over again.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
They will, but the power structure will squash the uprising...as always.
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
Undoubtedly violence, political chaos (nothing all that unusual for Pakistan) and lots of Western analysis.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
Pro-democracy? Bhutto was just returning to Pakistan to demand what she felt her family owned, nothing democratic about it. She was the the tribal leader , a leadership she inherited. I think it is ridiculous of us to pretend, even in her passing, that she was the daughter of democracy.
She was the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a man who for the Pakistani national cause celebre of Kashmir not only politically took Pakistan down a path that lead them in opposition to the US, he also declared to the UN in a now famous speech in regards to the Kashmir conflict "We will wage a war for a thousand years"
This is the man who founded his political party the PPP on a wave of distrust and national outrage because of a peace treaty with India. But most importantly and relevant to today's reports of concern, this is the man, it was under this family name Bhutto, that Pakistan's nuclear program was created and perused.
Benazir Bhutto is of a legacy of corrupt politics, of the political exploitation of the Kashmir conflict and the creators of Pakistan as a nuclear power. They sought support from the very terrorist groups they claim to hope to extinguish from the Pakistani political arena. Pakistan for many years has based political power and recognition to those they feel best retain their hold over Kashmir and by de facto war with India and this is what these political identities and issues have brought. You build a national identity based on a relentless war, and just perhaps that identity will begin to permeate all aspects of life.
Undoubtedly violence, political chaos (nothing all that unusual for Pakistan) and lots of Western analysis.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
Pro-democracy? Bhutto was just returning to Pakistan to demand what she felt her family owned, nothing democratic about it. She was the the tribal leader , a leadership she inherited. I think it is ridiculous of us to pretend, even in her passing, that she was the daughter of democracy.
She was the daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a man who for the Pakistani national cause celebre of Kashmir not only politically took Pakistan down a path that lead them in opposition to the US, he also declared to the UN in a now famous speech in regards to the Kashmir conflict "We will wage a war for a thousand years"
This is the man who founded his political party the PPP on a wave of distrust and national outrage because of a peace treaty with India. But most importantly and relevant to today's reports of concern, this is the man, it was under this family name Bhutto, that Pakistan's nuclear program was created and perused.
Benazir Bhutto is of a legacy of corrupt politics, of the political exploitation of the Kashmir conflict and the creators of Pakistan as a nuclear power. They sought support from the very terrorist groups they claim to hope to extinguish from the Pakistani political arena. Pakistan for many years has based political power and recognition to those they feel best retain their hold over Kashmir and by de facto war with India and this is what these political identities and issues have brought. You build a national identity based on a relentless war, and just perhaps that identity will begin to permeate all aspects of life.
What will be the biggest long-term affect of the assassination be on the political scene of Pakistan?
It is difficult to predict what may come of chaos, but I fear that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto may be this generation's assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. The ultimate affect could well be a nuclear confrontation between Pakistan and India - with the rest of the world dragged into it.
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
Rioting, bombings, political chaos. I wouldn't be surprised if Musharraf himself were assassinated, leading to another military coup - and further violence in Kashmir. There will also be increased tension between Sunnis and the Shia minority in Pakistan, which has been on a low simmer since the early 1980s. Indeed, Zia's grim legacy could result in outright civil war.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
Whether the Lebanese "stood up" in the wake of the Hariri assassination or not (and what may have motivated those who may have so stood), is the stuff of another debate. Contrary to the rank ignorance of some people posting here, though, the twice democratically-elected Benazir Bhutto was and the Pakistan People's Party is pro-democracy - staunchly pro-democracy - far more pro-democracy than, say, the Bush administration, if no less corrupt. Indeed, without Bhutto, the open elections in 1988 would probably never have occurred. Whether the PPP has the leadership to "stand up" against the ruling military factions in Pakistan now is hard to predict. I suspect that, without Bhutto, they won't. There will, however, be increasing violence between groups like Sipah-e-Sahaba and Tehrik-e-Jafria, possibly leading to civil war - unless the next military dictator can unite the country in opposition to India. In any event, without Bhutto, I doubt that there will be an election that will lead to any sort of stability - if, indeed, there are any elections at all.
It is difficult to predict what may come of chaos, but I fear that the assassination of Benazir Bhutto may be this generation's assassination of the Archduke Ferdinand. The ultimate affect could well be a nuclear confrontation between Pakistan and India - with the rest of the world dragged into it.
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
Rioting, bombings, political chaos. I wouldn't be surprised if Musharraf himself were assassinated, leading to another military coup - and further violence in Kashmir. There will also be increased tension between Sunnis and the Shia minority in Pakistan, which has been on a low simmer since the early 1980s. Indeed, Zia's grim legacy could result in outright civil war.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
Whether the Lebanese "stood up" in the wake of the Hariri assassination or not (and what may have motivated those who may have so stood), is the stuff of another debate. Contrary to the rank ignorance of some people posting here, though, the twice democratically-elected Benazir Bhutto was and the Pakistan People's Party is pro-democracy - staunchly pro-democracy - far more pro-democracy than, say, the Bush administration, if no less corrupt. Indeed, without Bhutto, the open elections in 1988 would probably never have occurred. Whether the PPP has the leadership to "stand up" against the ruling military factions in Pakistan now is hard to predict. I suspect that, without Bhutto, they won't. There will, however, be increasing violence between groups like Sipah-e-Sahaba and Tehrik-e-Jafria, possibly leading to civil war - unless the next military dictator can unite the country in opposition to India. In any event, without Bhutto, I doubt that there will be an election that will lead to any sort of stability - if, indeed, there are any elections at all.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Dec 28 2007, 07:36 PM) 
Contrary to the rank ignorance of some people posting here, though, the twice democratically-elected Benazir Bhutto was and the Pakistan People's Party is pro-democracy - staunchly pro-democracy - far more pro-democracy than, say, the Bush administration, if no less corrupt.
Does a party's political platform have so much sway with you or did someone say Benazir and her party appointed themselves legislative leaders like Musharraf assumed Chief Executive? Bush is very pro-democracy too. So much so that former liberals fault other liberals for not taking up his GWoT.
You cannot be for democracy, which is inherently transparent, if the end justifies corruption. This is as true for Bush as it is for Benazir. I don't feel like giving the PPP a pass because it's Pakistan. Dodging corruption charges isn't what I have in mind when I support democracy in locally acceptable forms.
QUOTE
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
To me, those for democracy have two things to contend with. One, they have to knock off the power and influence that radical Islam holds with a good number of people in Pakistan. Second, they have to overcome the dictatorial influence of military leaders. If they are smart, they will tackle their problems exactly in this order. Pakistani government officials claim to have communication intercepts that show Al-Qaeda is responsible for Bhutto's assassination. Until the more radical groups are dealt with, it is pointless to take on the generals. As to how this should occur, a good policy of setting up schools, social institutions, and provigind benefits(which the radicals do effectively) would help win more hearts and minds. Yes, they will rise up against Al-Qaeda, they can only screw it up by going after electoral reforms first.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Dec 28 2007, 08:16 PM)
Does a party's political platform have so much sway with you or did someone say Benazir and her party appointed themselves legislative leaders like Musharraf assumed Chief Executive?
Someone suggested that it was "ridiculous of us to pretend" that Bhutto was "the daughter of democracy" - and seemed to contributing to this thread solely to take exception with Titus' use of the term "pro-democracy" in relation to Bhutto's supporters. In reality, Bhutto and her party have always been pro-democracy. The PPP, under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was one of the leading forces in the pro-democracy movement of the late 1960s during the military governments of Ayub and Yahya, which led to parliamentary elections in 1970. The PPP, under Benazir Bhutto, was the leading force in the pro-democracy movement during Zia-al-Huq's regime, which led to Pakistan's first open election in over ten years. Now, the PPP was again the leading force in the pro-democracy movement during Pervez Musharraf's regime. I don't go by the platform, but by the actions of the PPP.
Granted, the Bhutto governments have been relatively ineffectual and unable to sustain a democratic system in Pakistan, but that does not detract from the fact that they have at least been able to form a couple of democratically-elected, civilian governments. Benazir Bhutto may not have been a Thomas Jefferson (though she was similarly secularist and of a similarly aristocratic background), but she sure as hell wasn't a Zia or a Musharraf.
QUOTE(Lesly @ Dec 28 2007, 08:16 PM)
You cannot be for democracy, which is inherently transparent, if the end justifies corruption. This is as true for Bush as it is for Benazir. I don't feel like giving the PPP a pass because it's Pakistan. Dodging corruption charges isn't what I have in mind when I support democracy in locally acceptable forms.
This is probably not the place to debate the merits of the corruption charges against Bhutto and, especially, her husband, but if there are grounds for the allegations, it does not necessarily imply that Bhutto advocated free, open elections in order to become corrupt (the family certainly didn't need the money - though I suppose the same could be said of the Cheneys). It could simply be another case of power corrupting - if, indeed, the charges do have merit. But if you are claiming that absolute transparency following one's election to office is prerequisite for a pro-democracy stance, then the United States (to name but one example) has not produced a single pro-democracy leader in its entire history. Even without comparing the Bhutto family to every other leader of Pakistan since its independence, it is ridiculous for us to pretend that the PPP is not - or was not - the most pro-democracy force in Pakistan (or at least the most viable one).
With Bhutto out of the way, the next most "pro-democracy" contender would probably be Nawaz Sharif - four of whose aides were shot dead on the morning of Bhutto's assassination and who has been barred form standing for election. Grim days ahead.
QUOTE(Wertz)
Contrary to the rank ignorance of some people posting here, though, the twice democratically-elected Benazir Bhutto was and the Pakistan People's Party is pro-democracy - staunchly pro-democracy - far more pro-democracy than, say, the Bush administration, if no less corrupt. Indeed, without Bhutto, the open elections in 1988 would probably never have occurred. Whether the PPP has the leadership to "stand up" against the ruling military factions in Pakistan now is hard to predict. I suspect that, without Bhutto, they won't. There will, however, be increasing violence between groups like Sipah-e-Sahaba and Tehrik-e-Jafria, possibly leading to civil war - unless the next military dictator can unite the country in opposition to India. In any event, without Bhutto, I doubt that there will be an election that will lead to any sort of stability - if, indeed, there are any elections at all.
Rank ignorance huh? How inviting to open debate.
The PPP has never been an institution of democracy but instead an autocratic institution. And it is in thanks to the Bush administration that you can sit here today and contemplate how it's upcoming elections in Pakistan would have brought this nation more credit in the democracy department. The Bush admin for over a year negotiated Bhutto's return and the PPP's participation in Pakistani politics because of exactly what you yourself feel is so important, a greater appearance of democracy in Pakistan.
U.S. Brokered Bhutto's Return to Pakistan White House Would Back Her as Prime Minister While Musharraf Held Presidency
For Benazir Bhutto, the decision to return to Pakistan was sealed during a telephone call from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just a week before Bhutto flew home in October. The call culminated more than a year of secret diplomacy -- and came only when it became clear that the heir to Pakistan's most powerful political dynasty was the only one who could bail out Washington's key ally in the battle against terrorism.
So I guess now when you claim that without Bhutto open elections could not occur in Pakistan you should also take some time out to give the Bush admin their due credit too, because without the Bush admins meddling and their dire need to have a more democratic face on the government of Pakistan Bhutto would have never been given this newest opportunity.
QUOTE(Wertz)
This is probably not the place to debate the merits of the corruption charges against Bhutto and, especially, her husband, but if there are grounds for the allegations, it does not necessarily imply that Bhutto advocated free, open elections in order to become corrupt (the family certainly didn't need the money - though I suppose the same could be said of the Cheneys).
This family's and more specifically Benazir Bhutto's own corruption charges far exceed mere monetary gains. There are accusations that this family's politics were corrupt too, which I think is very relevant to the discussion and the idea that they were "staunchly pro-democracy" because these accusations directly challenge this.
What will be the biggest long-term affect of the assassination be on the political scene of Pakistan?
As far as I can see, nothing much will happen because of this. Rather this has happened because of other events. Pakistan has become the front line against Islamic extremism with the mujahideen seeking to take control of the only Muslim nuclear power. Bhutto appears to have been convinced that she could make a difference, but it seems to me that she didn't understand what has happened in her own country in her absence and she has become a high profile statistic as a result of her stupidity.
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
Some rioting, maybe a few retaliatory attacks from 'her tribe'. Nothing much. I don't believe Bhutto had anything like the support she thought she had. Times have changed in Pakistan and the notion of a female leader in the country which now hosts al qaeda is pretty quaint.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
Nope.
As far as I can see, nothing much will happen because of this. Rather this has happened because of other events. Pakistan has become the front line against Islamic extremism with the mujahideen seeking to take control of the only Muslim nuclear power. Bhutto appears to have been convinced that she could make a difference, but it seems to me that she didn't understand what has happened in her own country in her absence and she has become a high profile statistic as a result of her stupidity.
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
Some rioting, maybe a few retaliatory attacks from 'her tribe'. Nothing much. I don't believe Bhutto had anything like the support she thought she had. Times have changed in Pakistan and the notion of a female leader in the country which now hosts al qaeda is pretty quaint.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
Nope.
QUOTE(bucket @ Dec, 03:07 PM)
Rank ignorance huh? How inviting to open debate.
Rank ignorance is seldom conducive to open debate.
QUOTE(bucket @ Dec, 03:07 PM)
The PPP has never been an institution of democracy but instead an autocratic institution.
Foundation? (If this is another of your groundless assertions, never mind. In fact, never mind even if you do have some dubious source for this Sunni talking point: the discussion here is not about whether Titus should have described the PPP as "pro-democracy" or not; it's about whether her supporters will rise against those favoring al-Qaeda and the Taliban.)
QUOTE(bucket @ Dec, 03:07 PM)
And it is in thanks to the Bush administration that you can sit here today and contemplate how it's upcoming elections in Pakistan would have brought this nation more credit in the democracy department. ... So I guess now when you claim that without Bhutto open elections could not occur in Pakistan you should also take some time out to give the Bush admin their due credit too, because without the Bush admins meddling and their dire need to have a more democratic face on the government of Pakistan Bhutto would have never been given this newest opportunity.
I have no problem giving credit where it's due. To the extent that the Bush administration was instrumental in the return of Bhutto, the brokering of a power share, and the organization of the - possibly - upcoming election, they deserve credit for it. Kudos to Dr. Rice and anyone else involved.
QUOTE(bucket @ Dec, 03:07 PM)
This family's and more specifically Benazir Bhutto's own corruption charges far exceed mere monetary gains. There are accusations that this family's politics were corrupt too, which I think is very relevant to the discussion and the idea that they were "staunchly pro-democracy" because these accusations directly challenge this.
Then maybe you should cite some of these corrupt politics rather than just claiming they exist. Actually, don't. The question is whether or not Bhutto's supporters will stand up to "the other half of the country" - it makes no difference what adjective Titus used to describe the PPP. Your exception to his choice of words is duly noted and I'm sure no one would have a problem with stipulating that it is your right to believe that Benazir Bhutto is the most evil, degenerate woman ever to have walked the face of the earth. Okay? It is also your right to prefer military dictatorships to progressive, secular, democratically-elected parliaments. But the character of Benazir Bhutto - for good or ill - is utterly irrelevant to this discussion and pursuing your umbrage would only further derail the debate. There is corruption (and allegations of corruption) in every party under every system of government and there always will be - at least, until humans are replaced by automatons. A Democrat accused of being corrupt does not mean that the entire Democratic party is ipso facto anti-democracy; it just means that an individual is the target of a charge of corruption. The same goes for a Republican accused of corruption, a communist accused of corruption, or a member of the PPP accused of corruption. Even if such individuals are corrupt, it does not indicate anything about their party's platform, goals, or mission.
If you wish to further bash the corpse of Benazir Bhutto (or, indeed, celebrate the actions of the criminals who murdered her), might I suggest you start a new thread. Try the History Debate forum.
QUOTE(Wertz)
Foundation? (If this is another of your groundless assertions, never mind. In fact, never mind even if you do have some dubious source for this Sunni talking point: the discussion here is not about whether Titus should have described the PPP as "pro-democracy" or not; it's about whether her supporters will rise against those favoring al-Qaeda and the Taliban.)
Sunni talking point? What are you on about? Is it possible that you just disagree with my arguments and not use all the name calling?
I think the idea that her return to Pakistan was a move towards democracy or back to the old order is very relevant to this debate. And if you were listening to reports out of Pakistan you would know already that most of her supporters don't blame al Qaeda or the Taliban they instead blame Musharraf, the idea it was the Taliban or some other is seen as a cover-up instrumented by not only the Musharraf govt but his Western allies.
QUOTE(Wertz)
I have no problem giving credit where it's due. To the extent that the Bush administration was instrumental in the return of Bhutto, the brokering of a power share, and the organization of the - possibly - upcoming election, they deserve credit for it. Kudos to Dr. Rice and anyone else involved.
Well you think credit is still due in a failed diplomacy? It didn't work did it? Not to mention what exactly is "democratic" about secret back room brokering and power sharing negotiations? This is what you consider democracy? That seems to be the attitude of the Bush admin, the admin you feel deserves credit and "kudos". Besides President Bush himself describes President Musharraf as "somebody who believes in democracy" why should we trust this administration with their interpretation of who is the most "democratic"? The truth is that this nation has had decades worth of these secret deals, these brokering of power between military and politician and what has it brought them? Certainly not democracy, Bush only continued the blunder.
QUOTE(Wertz)
Then maybe you should cite some of these corrupt politics rather than just claiming they exist. Actually, don't.
Exactly, why should you have to listen to anyone with an opposing view.
Have you even bothered to read the biography of this woman? She is accused by her own mother and niece of murdering her own brother (and some of his supporters), and yeah it was political. She appointed herself Chairperson for Life, and when did her party ever hold regular internal elections?
Even tho you said don't, I will...
Her reign was marked by massive human rights abuse: Amnesty International accused her government of having one of the world's worst records of custodial deaths, extrajudicial killings and torture.
Bhutto's premiership was also distinguished by epic levels of corruption. In 1995 Transparency International named Pakistan one of the three most corrupt countries in the world.
Guardian
Bhutto’s regime is remembered for having one of the worst human rights records in Pakistan's history, and her government did not allow the media freedoms she criticizes Musharraf for crushing.
New York Times
QUOTE(Wertz)
The question is whether or not Bhutto's supporters will stand up to "the other half of the country" - it makes no difference what adjective Titus used to describe the PPP.
Pakistan is hardly divided into just two groups, I also seriously doubt that the Taliban or al Qaeda represent 50% of the Pakistani nation.
QUOTE(Wertz)
Your exception to his choice of words is duly noted and I'm sure no one would have a problem with stipulating that it is your right to believe that Benazir Bhutto is the most evil, degenerate woman ever to have walked the face of the earth. Okay? It is also your right to prefer military dictatorships to progressive, secular, democratically-elected parliaments.
I never gave my personal views of her as a woman, I do understand this is a political discussion and we are considering her political attributes, I don't believe democratic is one of them. I have also not shown any support to or preference for military dictatorships. But you have, because if you supported her return and gave "kudos' to the Washington lead secret diplomacy for her return to power then you must support one of the main objectives of this scheme. That main objective was to rescue Musharraf's presidency and to retain his political control of Pakistan.
QUOTE(Wertz)
But the character of Benazir Bhutto - for good or ill - is utterly irrelevant to this discussion and pursuing your umbrage would only further derail the debate. There is corruption (and allegations of corruption) in every party under every system of government and there always will be - at least, until humans are replaced by automatons. A Democrat accused of being corrupt does not mean that the entire Democratic party is ipso facto anti-democracy; it just means that an individual is the target of a charge of corruption. The same goes for a Republican accused of corruption, a communist accused of corruption, or a member of the PPP accused of corruption. Even if such individuals are corrupt, it does not indicate anything about their party's platform, goals, or mission.
This is such a misrepresentation of my argument as I have never called into question her personal character, but instead remained focused on her politics. I wish you could do the same. It is political corruption that I have taken issue with not moral corruption. Your above declaration that this is the corruption of one not all is just silly when we apply it to the PPP, a party that Ms. Bhutto claimed as her very own, a party she would only relinquish in death. And I think more importantly now the question should be can the PPP outlive her death?
Many Pakistanis resented her return, not only because they distrusted her intentions but because they believed she would bring nothing but violence and chaos, and it looks like they were correct and now even better and in thanks to the Bush admin the US will also share in this blame too. Or like you said..."kudos!"
The questions for debate here used to be:
What will be the biggest long-term affect of the assassination be on the political scene of Pakistan?
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
As suggested in my previous posts, pursuing a debate on the corruption allegations regarding Bhutto have little to do with those questions. Now something like this...
The rest of your reply is either off-topic or supports the single point above. One note, though:
Pakistan is hardly divided into just two groups, I also seriously doubt that the Taliban or al Qaeda represent 50% of the Pakistani nation.
I agree entirely. I was quoting one of the questions as posed by Titus. I took exception his his use of "the other half of the country" just as you took exception to his use of "pro-democracy". Rather than making an issue of it and responding to this thread merely to rant about the good Titus' phrasing, I simply added quotation marks as part of my response, as you could have done with "pro-democracy" - if you'd actually had a response. Or you could simply have posted a point of information ("Not everyone accepts that the PPP can be described as 'pro-democracy'" or similar) and got on with your reply to the questions - again, if you'd had a reply.
This thread is not about the political positions of the PPP, but about the aftermath of an assassination. I will only be responding to posts that address the questions for debate. Should there be a thread about the history and prospects of democracy in Pakistan, I would agree with some of your points - and dispute others. Here, they are off topic.
What will be the biggest long-term affect of the assassination be on the political scene of Pakistan?
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
As suggested in my previous posts, pursuing a debate on the corruption allegations regarding Bhutto have little to do with those questions. Now something like this...
QUOTE(bucket @ Dec, 10:45 PM)
Many Pakistanis resented her return, not only because they distrusted her intentions but because they believed she would bring nothing but violence and chaos.
could support a response to the last question, but answering the questions did not seem to be your intention here - until, maybe, your third post. If you are - finally - arguing that Bhutto's supporters would not rise against the supporters of al-Qaeda and the Taliban because of fear and distrust of Bhutto herself, fair enough. That could be debated. Maybe you should have said as much in your first response.The rest of your reply is either off-topic or supports the single point above. One note, though:
QUOTE(bucket @ Dec, 10:45 PM)
QUOTE(Wertz)
The question is whether or not Bhutto's supporters will stand up to "the other half of the country" - it makes no difference what adjective Titus used to describe the PPP.
Pakistan is hardly divided into just two groups, I also seriously doubt that the Taliban or al Qaeda represent 50% of the Pakistani nation.
I agree entirely. I was quoting one of the questions as posed by Titus. I took exception his his use of "the other half of the country" just as you took exception to his use of "pro-democracy". Rather than making an issue of it and responding to this thread merely to rant about the good Titus' phrasing, I simply added quotation marks as part of my response, as you could have done with "pro-democracy" - if you'd actually had a response. Or you could simply have posted a point of information ("Not everyone accepts that the PPP can be described as 'pro-democracy'" or similar) and got on with your reply to the questions - again, if you'd had a reply.
This thread is not about the political positions of the PPP, but about the aftermath of an assassination. I will only be responding to posts that address the questions for debate. Should there be a thread about the history and prospects of democracy in Pakistan, I would agree with some of your points - and dispute others. Here, they are off topic.
What will be the biggest long-term affect of the assassination be on the political scene of Pakistan?
This is tempting to draw a parallel between the beginning of WW I. However, at the beginning of the 20th century the world had not yet witnessed how terrible warfare can become. The destruction of two major Japanese cities by a mere two bombs, crude nukes at that, brought the realization of war to its ultimate end. Yes, we can destroy each other utterly, completely, without doubt and without continuity. At the beginning of the 21st century this realization carries through. I doubt a nuclear war will ensue but more of the same kinds of lower-level conflicts we've seen, very simian, throwing turds at one another, torturing one another, jumping up and down, lopping off heads with swords. Maybe it has something to do with archetype nostalgia
I do see the intra-Muslim conflicts as in Iraq expanding. More suicide bombings, perhaps a call for tighter police controls on this. Pakistan does have an advantage over Iraq in that its police and military forces are still intact. We'll probably see the continuation of dictatorial controls over an unruly population. Not good for democracy. Better for stability. Much better for avoiding global nuclear war.
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
International shock. A handful of best-selling political books and talking head appearances. Crackdown on terrorists in the region. OBL gets hit with a mickey (poison in his tea) and leaves the hotel (dies). Maybe a video game or two.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
I'm under the distinct impression that the majority of Pakistanis do not support AQ. Seems that might turn the tables on terrorism in the region, so I'm expecting something akin to martial law, lots of sweeping raids, many arrests, and treatment of detainees that will shock the sensibilities of the West.
But say Pakistan starts lobbing nukes at India and India returns the favor. What then?
I guess we won't have to worry about losing jobs to outsourcing. World population will take a sharp downward turn. We'll probably want more than duct tape and plastic sheeting. Fallout shelters become hot commodities, along with MREs and bottled water. Thank deities for wireless Internet.
But I don't think that's going to happen. Democracy has taken a hit though, and I'm thinking that certain regions of the world are just too backwards to handle democracy.
This is tempting to draw a parallel between the beginning of WW I. However, at the beginning of the 20th century the world had not yet witnessed how terrible warfare can become. The destruction of two major Japanese cities by a mere two bombs, crude nukes at that, brought the realization of war to its ultimate end. Yes, we can destroy each other utterly, completely, without doubt and without continuity. At the beginning of the 21st century this realization carries through. I doubt a nuclear war will ensue but more of the same kinds of lower-level conflicts we've seen, very simian, throwing turds at one another, torturing one another, jumping up and down, lopping off heads with swords. Maybe it has something to do with archetype nostalgia
I do see the intra-Muslim conflicts as in Iraq expanding. More suicide bombings, perhaps a call for tighter police controls on this. Pakistan does have an advantage over Iraq in that its police and military forces are still intact. We'll probably see the continuation of dictatorial controls over an unruly population. Not good for democracy. Better for stability. Much better for avoiding global nuclear war.
What do you think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the assassination?
International shock. A handful of best-selling political books and talking head appearances. Crackdown on terrorists in the region. OBL gets hit with a mickey (poison in his tea) and leaves the hotel (dies). Maybe a video game or two.
Will her supporters and other pro-democracy supporters rise up against the other half of the country that support Al-Qaeda and the Taliban the same way the Lebanese stood up in the wake of the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
I'm under the distinct impression that the majority of Pakistanis do not support AQ. Seems that might turn the tables on terrorism in the region, so I'm expecting something akin to martial law, lots of sweeping raids, many arrests, and treatment of detainees that will shock the sensibilities of the West.
But say Pakistan starts lobbing nukes at India and India returns the favor. What then?
I guess we won't have to worry about losing jobs to outsourcing. World population will take a sharp downward turn. We'll probably want more than duct tape and plastic sheeting. Fallout shelters become hot commodities, along with MREs and bottled water. Thank deities for wireless Internet.
But I don't think that's going to happen. Democracy has taken a hit though, and I'm thinking that certain regions of the world are just too backwards to handle democracy.
Wertz your argument that you have with me seems incredibly disingenuous. You make all these complaints about me...my ignorance, my intentions, my lack of focus or inability to answer questions...all the while you have done nothing to further this debate you claim to be so concerned about. You have just taken the debate further off topic with your need to scold and constantly correct me as if I was a child. Enough already, you don't want to address my points of argument or the facts you previously demanded about Benazir Bhutto's corrupt anti-democratic policies then just don't. No need for all the pretense about why you won't just calmly and fairly address an opposing view on the matter.
This is addressed to anyone who cares to engage in real honest debate....
I think my points about the fact that Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan was a Bush admin. orchestrated secret plan to help keep Musharraf in power is a necessary piece of information to discuss for anyone who wishes to speculate on what is going to happen as a result of her death. First you have to analyze what was the purpose of her going back while she was still alive. Democracy? Is that what any of us should honestly think or take at face value because the Bush admin says it was? No it was control that was what the Bush admin wanted, Pakistan is always so uncontrollable and they felt with a woman like Benazir Bhutto who they were excusing all her past sins ( her corruption charges in Pakistan were dropped as part of this secret deal) would be more controllable and that Musharraf would in some sense be beholden to her popularity.
Well big surprise more Bush diplomacy that failed, and once again we are left holding the puppet strings, I wonder how many of you feel the US will get the lion's share of the blame from the Pakistani public for her death. This was another point I made in my previous post, that the blame will not go to al Qaeda or the Taliban but to Musharraf and the US. I think who the Pakistanis feel is to blame for her murder is also an important piece of information to consider when debating what the affect will be on Pakistan's political scene.
It is interesting to consider will this meddling be seen as intrusive and overstepping as the Iranians feel about US involvement with the Shah. That generated enough anger and resentment to fuel a now nearly 3 decades long "Islamic Republic Revolution".
Also today it was announced that the new party leader of the PPP was to be Benazir Bhutto's eldest son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, as stated by her will. He is 19 yrs old and still at college so he can't fulfill his leadership duties just yet so they also announced that her husband, now widower, Asif Zardari will act as regent, also designated by her will. I think any other doubts about this being a political dynasty have been put to rest. They have also chosen their pick for the PPP's candidate for PM and it is a Mr. Makhdum Amin Fahim, as both the father and son co-chairpersons are ineligible for election in Pakistan currently. I have read that Bilawal can't even speak Urdu, maybe now he is taking lessons?
I also do believe elections will continue as planned but Pakistan is always full of surprises.
This is addressed to anyone who cares to engage in real honest debate....
I think my points about the fact that Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan was a Bush admin. orchestrated secret plan to help keep Musharraf in power is a necessary piece of information to discuss for anyone who wishes to speculate on what is going to happen as a result of her death. First you have to analyze what was the purpose of her going back while she was still alive. Democracy? Is that what any of us should honestly think or take at face value because the Bush admin says it was? No it was control that was what the Bush admin wanted, Pakistan is always so uncontrollable and they felt with a woman like Benazir Bhutto who they were excusing all her past sins ( her corruption charges in Pakistan were dropped as part of this secret deal) would be more controllable and that Musharraf would in some sense be beholden to her popularity.
Well big surprise more Bush diplomacy that failed, and once again we are left holding the puppet strings, I wonder how many of you feel the US will get the lion's share of the blame from the Pakistani public for her death. This was another point I made in my previous post, that the blame will not go to al Qaeda or the Taliban but to Musharraf and the US. I think who the Pakistanis feel is to blame for her murder is also an important piece of information to consider when debating what the affect will be on Pakistan's political scene.
It is interesting to consider will this meddling be seen as intrusive and overstepping as the Iranians feel about US involvement with the Shah. That generated enough anger and resentment to fuel a now nearly 3 decades long "Islamic Republic Revolution".
Also today it was announced that the new party leader of the PPP was to be Benazir Bhutto's eldest son, Bilawal Bhutto Zardari, as stated by her will. He is 19 yrs old and still at college so he can't fulfill his leadership duties just yet so they also announced that her husband, now widower, Asif Zardari will act as regent, also designated by her will. I think any other doubts about this being a political dynasty have been put to rest. They have also chosen their pick for the PPP's candidate for PM and it is a Mr. Makhdum Amin Fahim, as both the father and son co-chairpersons are ineligible for election in Pakistan currently. I have read that Bilawal can't even speak Urdu, maybe now he is taking lessons?
I also do believe elections will continue as planned but Pakistan is always full of surprises.
QUOTE
Well big surprise more Bush diplomacy that failed, and once again we are left holding the puppet strings, I wonder how many of you feel the US will get the lion's share of the blame from the Pakistani public for her death. This was another point I made in my previous post, that the blame will not go to al Qaeda or the Taliban but to Musharraf and the US. I think who the Pakistanis feel is to blame for her murder is also an important piece of information to consider when debating what the affect will be on Pakistan's political scene.
Certainly we are a supporter of Musharraf but to say Bush made it all happen is ludicraous. Did Bush bring him to power? Of course not and he works with us because he knows that the Bush threat after 9/11 that to do otherwise would be hazardous to the health of Pakistan.
Bhutto and others want reform in Pakistan and the word “democracy” there was not invented by Bush or even Clinton. We are generally not liked there with Israel and the West in general. What else is new. To blame this on Bush is again silly at best.
QUOTE(Ted)
Certainly we are a supporter of Musharraf but to say Bush made it all happen is ludicraous. Did Bush bring him to power? Of course not and he works with us because he knows that the Bush threat after 9/11 that to do otherwise would be hazardous to the health of Pakistan.
Bhutto and others want reform in Pakistan and the word “democracy” there was not invented by Bush or even Clinton. We are generally not liked there with Israel and the West in general. What else is new. To blame this on Bush is again silly at best.
Bhutto and others want reform in Pakistan and the word “democracy” there was not invented by Bush or even Clinton. We are generally not liked there with Israel and the West in general. What else is new. To blame this on Bush is again silly at best.
Ted I suggest you go back through this thread and read my initial posts. I first offered an article for debate that recounts the Bush admin's secret diplomatic push for Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan. I don't believe for one minute that she would have returned without the Bush admin's direct involvement.
Bush has told us that Musharraf is "someone who believes in Democracy" he certainly is never shy with his support for this man and it is not only silly and well deserving of blame but it is also directly against any sense of democratic values that he claims to be so concerned about in the region. You can sit here and claim that the hatred and our dislike in the region is nothing new or appears without cause but in reality we are hardly inactive bystanders and our president's words and actions do have an affect.
QUOTE
Ted I suggest you go back through this thread and read my initial posts. I first offered an article for debate that recounts the Bush admin's secret diplomatic push for Benazir Bhutto's return to Pakistan. I don't believe for one minute that she would have returned without the Bush admin's direct involvement.
How do I say this? Do I believe any “article” (partisan or not) that claims to know Bush’s “secret” plans?
The answer in NO.
And she is not the only one who wants back in. So if you’re going to try, as always, to blame any event orcalamity in the region on “Bush” I simply don’t buy it.
QUOTE
You can sit here and claim that the hatred and our dislike in the region is nothing new or appears without cause but in reality we are hardly inactive bystanders and our president's words and actions do have an affect.
That’s right we are not “bystanders” and haven’t been for DECADES. How you can try to pin this all on “Bush” is so ludicrous as to be not worth discussing. They hate us because we support, fund, arm and side with Israel. Now if you are going to blame that on Bush – try it.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.