|
Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: swake on December 27, 2007, 08:40:38 am Benazier Bhutto, the most popular non-extremist Politian in Pakistan has been killed, most likely by Taliban style extremists. She is the former and likely next Prime Minister and her death leaves a power vacuum that is likely to be filled by people that are at least very hostile to the United States, and likely to be filled by openly Islamic extremists with close ties to the Taliban. Musharif’s days in power as President are likely nearly done no matter what the elections say, if they are held. We are probably seeing the disintegration of a modern nation state.
A lot of the blame for this can be placed at our feet for not securing the border area in Afghanistan and getting rid of the Taliban. Our failure to secure the border region (and capture Bin Laden or Omar) has provided a base of operations for and emboldened extremists in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. The whole country of Pakistan is now in grave danger of falling to the very kind of people that we drove from power in Afghanistan. To be very clear Pakistan has nuclear weapons, has long range missiles and has a rapidly disintegrating government and secular social structure. This has grave consequences for American Security worldwide. This is far more dangerous to the world than 9/11 was. It is a too little known fact that the Taliban were funded and placed in power by Pakistani secret service and there are very close ties not only with the tribal areas in the mountains in both countries but with the military and security forces in Pakistan. The chances of a real two sided nuclear war with India are very high, maybe probable. The chances that someone will attempt to get use a bomb against us or our interests are rising rapidly. Reason number one why we should have never gone into Iraq is that it sapped our attention and resources that should have been focused on getting the job done in Afghanistan. We needed 300,000 troops in Afghanistan, not Iraq. We have not secured Afghanistan, we have not captured our real enemies and we are now seeing the results in both Afghanistan and Pakistan and soon may see it in India and around the world. Bush has failed us, and we are now far less secure than we were even right during 9/11. We and the world may well soon start to pay the price for that failure. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: inteller on December 27, 2007, 08:59:42 am If they get a bomb to use against us, I only request that they bring it to New Orleans so we can stop rebuilding that cesspool once and for all.
Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: cannon_fodder on December 27, 2007, 09:10:39 am I am at times very optimistic about the democratic prospects of Pakistan and moments latter terrified of the radical nature of a large tract of its populous. She knew the risk she was taking, too bad her worst fears were realized. What do you suppose the chances are that the power-that-be will do anything to track down the assassin's cohorts to the North West?
If the General was assassinated you know damn well that area would be over run once and for all. and yet again... Muslim fundamentalists bringing peace and love to the world. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: inteller on December 27, 2007, 09:52:36 am quote: there, fixed it for ya[;)] Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: cannon_fodder on December 27, 2007, 10:03:20 am In all fairness, there are not portions of the United States that our regular citizens, police and even military can not go. There are not sections that our laws do not apply. Nor have any candidates in the United States been assassinated. And there is not a large minority of people that advocate using violence against everyone to get their way.
For that matter, we do not have a military dictator who dissolves courts and rules by decree and our elections have NEVER been deemed unfair by international observers. We have not had emergency rule for 60+ years (WWII habeas was suspended) and that was for a set duration. While you joke about the United States, Pakistan really is on the brink of collapse into Islamic rule. In which case a war with India is nearly assured - and possibly a nuclear war. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: inteller on December 27, 2007, 10:17:44 am quote: oh really? do a search on elohim city sometime. We live in a country founded by kooks. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: Conan71 on December 27, 2007, 10:42:08 am I had expected this from the time she returned to Pakistan and was not shocked when the news alert from WaPo showed up in my email.
I don't see how the blame falls squarely at the feet of the U.S. Is it because we haven't rounded up every single fundamentalist nut-job Muslim or asshat Imam? Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: inteller on December 27, 2007, 10:51:02 am quote: yes basically. but this clears the way for an islamic takeover. Then india and pakistan can lob nukes at each other and take care of that little problem. Only issue is that nukes only work well on populated places and pakistan has a lot of no mans land. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: cannon_fodder on December 27, 2007, 11:19:13 am As far as no-man lands...
Pakistan averages 198 people per sq. kilometer while the US averages 31. That reflects extreme density in large portions of the country - fitting 161 million people into Oklahoma and Texas together. and one obscure reference and some sketchy history does not make the modern USA in any way comparable to the problem Pakistan is facing. I hope you really do understand the difference and are just acting obtuse. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: swake on December 27, 2007, 11:34:49 am quote: Squarely? No, but a substantial amount of the blame can come here and WE are the ones that could have kept this from happening. The Muslim world was mostly understanding of our invasion in Afghanistan. Muslims, radical or not are a spiritual and symbolic people. We were attacked, we attacked back, there is a proper symmetry there and a moral understanding of our actions. Our mistake was Iraq, a “preemptive” war (at best) where we were not attacked. The Muslim world saw this as an attack on Islam. Even more damaging was our failure at the same time in Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden or Sheik Omar who had attacked us. For a symbolic Muslim world the mighty United States’ failure to get those who had attacked us was seen as the will of God, it gave religious legitimacy to the Taliban and Bin Laden. Further proof was our loss of moral high ground in using torture and imprisonment against our own laws. Lastly and finally our lack of God’s favor has been presented in our “failure” to control Iraq. These have all combined to radicalize the Islamic world against us. On a real logistic level Iraq sapped our ability to solve Afghanistan. We needed the troops that were sent to Iraq to be place in Afghanistan to control that country and to find and end Al Qaeda and the Taliban. We needed Afghanistan to be the focus of our military and our intelligence agencies. Instead they were and are focused on Iraq. If we had not invaded Iraq and we then had done what needed to be done in Afghanistan in controlling and repairing that war torn nation and capturing our enemies the world be a very different place today. History is going to be very correctly unkind to the younger president Bush. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: mr.jaynes on December 27, 2007, 11:53:17 am quote: And to that I say-restore New Orleans back to what it once was, and rebuild only that which is completely gone. And inteller, it's not a cesspool. It's among America's best cities, and needs to be restored. Tennessee Williams once said that America has only three cities: New York, San Francisco and New Orleans;everywhere else is Cleveland. Bring back New Orleans and bring back some culture that will spread to the rest of the country. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: Conan71 on December 27, 2007, 12:34:54 pm quote: No doubt involvement in Iraq was poorly timed with resources you get my full agreement there. However, there's been a Muslim struggle and negative sentiment toward the U.S. far longer than the day we invaded Iraq. Anyone who lines up with the U.S. in the Muslim world is fair game for Muslim extremists and it's been that way for decades, not five years. That still doesn't make it our fault. It's a perversion and hijacking of the Quran which makes it so. It's hyperbole to suggest that this is the fault of the U.S. It takes one person out of 6 billion or so around the world to be responsible for the death of another not an entire nation. So many people don't seem to understand the enormity of the terrorism problem. There is no such thing as instant gratification in the WOT even in today's world of instant gratification and communication. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: FOTD on December 27, 2007, 01:28:08 pm Todays Must Read
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004984.php Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: swake on December 27, 2007, 01:32:59 pm quote: It's not the assassination that we share responsibility for, that is the fault of the killer and his backers. Our fault lies in allowing and even helping to create the environment where Pakistan is so unstable that such a murder has such far reaching and negative consequences for the entire world. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: cannon_fodder on December 27, 2007, 02:00:13 pm I can't help but agree on some levels that the United States has done things to further upset the Muslim horde, but anything short of overt agreement and submission has historically garnered their wraith. Thus, it is more likley we have provided a TARGET for them, instead of a real instigation. Sorry to say it, but the time that the Mulsims have been most peaceful is when they were totally subdued by the British.
Otherwise the entire history of the Middle east after the death of Mohammad has been of war (and, of course, most of it before hand). Against the followers of Ali, Arabs against Persians, Iraq/Iran, and above all else all versus anyone that is not Muslim. Christians in North Africa, Spain, or the Balkans (clear to the gates of Vienna). Or Hindu's and Buddhists in Persia, Afghanistan, India, Indonesia and the whole of Southeast Asia. Or Christians in the Philippines and Africa. Tribesmen in Africa. Jews in Israel. Basically, anywhere Muslims encounter any other culture or religion or even a different sect of Islam there is ongoing conflict and has been for over a thousand years. Islam, like any other religion, is open to interpretation. In centuries past Christianity was interpreted to slaughter Native Americans and wage retaliatory wars against the then more advanced Mulsims. However, consistently a large enough faction of Islam has taken a violent interpretation and sought to expand or reestablish The Caliphate as they see fit using violence. It is a religion founded on violence (rose by first raiding caravans and then taking Mecca and Medina by force), expanded by force (the military conquest of the middle East just short of Alexanders scope), and consistently occupied by conflict (with everyone else at the start, then against itself, then against the East, then Europe, then itself [oddly during the British occupation they mostly fought amongst themselves - hence Lawrence famously referred to them as 'little people preoccupied with fighting over each other's table scraps' - or something to that effect] , and now the USA and Israel). Without a fundamental change or a firm split in doctrines, I do not see the trend of the last 1250 years changing. I boldly predict large factions of Islam will remain occupied with the waging of Jihad and forcing their ways on others. I hope I'm wrong and I hope the more spiritual factions of Islam win out - but they have enjoyed little success since the 12th Century (it is worth noting that the golden age of Islam in the 11th century was an internally peaceful and enlightened time, though wars of expansion continued in all directions). I fail to see how, at the core, that is the fault of the United States. Perhaps we have provided them a new target, but certainly angst and hostility existed towards many before us and will probably exist as long as Islam is a religion. Again, hope I'm wrong and no - not all Muslims are terrorists. But, unfortunately, enough are radical that such practices are commonly accepted, are able to raise large funds, and operate freely in vast areas of the Muslim world. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: Derailed on December 27, 2007, 02:03:05 pm al-Qaeda apparently has taken credit for the assassination today:
"A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto. “We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan. It is believed that the decision to kill Bhutto, who is the leader of the opposition Pakistan People's Party (PPP), was made by al-Qaeda No. 2, the Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahiri in October..." http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1710322437 Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: inteller on December 28, 2007, 07:17:04 am quote: the most valuable asset? haha give me a break...she helped make the Taliban what it is today. Bhutto was just a necessary evil. Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: swake on December 28, 2007, 07:59:18 am quote: Again you prove you have no idea what you are talking about.... Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: Breadburner on December 28, 2007, 04:17:22 pm She certainly contributed to her own demise by making her-self an easy target.....
Title: Bhutto Assassinated Post by: FOTD on December 28, 2007, 04:58:56 pm William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security National Security & Foreign Policy Advisers '08 Analysis http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/bin_laden_killed_bhutto_how_bl.html#more "The Generals and the Candidates Bin Laden Killed Bhutto? How Blind Can We Be? The shorthand being bandied about in the news that al-Qaeda is responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto is so sloppy, so lacking in nuance or understanding of the dynamics of Pakistan, and so self-centered in its reference to America's enemy as to be almost laughable. Several U.S. defense and intelligence experts are quoted today dismissing even the possibility that President Pervez Musharraf, Pakistani government forces, or other domestic elements could be involved, a conclusion that flies in the face of the country's history and ignores the obvious beneficiaries. Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, commander of U.S. Central Command during the Clinton administration, told The Washington Post that there is "no doubt in my mind" that the murderers are linked to al-Qaeda. In an interview with Time magazine, he elaborated: "[T]hey're the only ones who gain from this.... I really think they're trying to ignite Pakistan into the kind of chaos they need to survive." Former CIA official and National Security Council staffer Bruce Riedel, now at the Brookings Institution, is spouting the same theory, telling Newsweek that the assassination was "almost certainly the work of Al Qaeda or Al Qaeda's Pakistani allies...Their objective is to destabilize the Pakistani state, to break up the secular political parties, to break up the army so that Pakistan becomes a politically failing state in which the Islamists in time can come to power much as they have in other failing states." To be sure, al-Qaeda has found sanctuary in Pakistan since its founding in 1988. Key al-Qaeda lieutenants such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Sept. 11 organizer, have operated from there. Before Sept. 11, Pakistan was a source of recruits and financing and technical support for al-Qaeda. And since Sept. 11, "al Qaeda" has been tied to various attempts to kill President Musharraf and to attacks on Pakistani Army and intelligence facilities - attacks that have increased in frequency and consequence since the central government sought to control the lawless border region. The thinking is that al-Qaeda has been trying to preserve its freedom of operations and to build relations with like-minded affiliates and Pakistani jihadis. That said, al-Qaeda -- at least the movement led by and associated with Osama bin Laden -- is in terms of power and importance at the bottom of a long list of anti-democratic factions in Pakistan, including malcontents in the active and retired military, renegade intelligence and secret service elements, radical Islamic political parties, extremist Sunni movements, indigenous terrorist organizations and Afghan and Pakistani "Taliban" movements. To say that "al-Qaeda" is responsible for Bhutto's assassination -- suggesting Osama bin Laden and an external force -- is to ignore all those political and religious factions inside the country that had the motives and resources to kill the former prime minister. Some of those factions in the government, the military or the intelligence services were likely privy to Bhutto's movements, and they could have actively schemed, if not played a direct role, in getting the suicide attacker to the right place at the right time. Musharraf, of course, will say that he "warned" Bhutto of the dangers. Though, given that Bhutto's father, another former prime minister, was hanged by a military dictatorship and her two brothers were killed under suspicious circumstances, she no doubt already understood the landscape of domestic threats. Meanwhile, U.S. intelligence officials are trying to verify the claim, via an Italian website, that al-Qaeda was behind the killing. Mustafa Abu al Yazid, al-Qaeda's commander in Afghanistan, allegedly told a reporter: "We have terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahedin." The website reported that the call to assassinate Bhutto came from al-Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman Zawahiri. This claim of responsibility is highly suspect. And, if al-Qaeda were involved at all, it's less likely to have dictated decisions than to have been used by domestic factions pursuing their own power objectives. Those factions almost universally have an interest in labeling all lawlessness and terrorism "al Qaeda" activity. Given Pakistan's history, it is unlikely that the true perpetrators will ever be brought to justice. For the United States though, the al-Qaeda bogey-man has the negative effect of affirming support for Musharraf and his martial law, while ignoring the various extremists who represent the true existential threat to the country. We should not let our al-Qaeda fixation blind us, just as the Soviet threat did in Iran in the 1970s, to the realities that Pakistan could implode of its own accord." |