ElectricBlue187
Member
scorcho said:
both? maybe one shot her and the other bombed her
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Breaking News: Benazir Bhutto killed in suicide attack.
- Thread starter CrushDance
- Start date
- Status
both? maybe one shot her and the other bombed her
Mrs. Manky said:
Its not like that at all...
-There's no Taliban...
-Bhutto is more liberal/westernize on changing the customs of a country and still liberal in the economics sense. Mostly based in Sindhi, province in Pakistan. She wants to give everything to the west.
-MMN(Sharifs) and there is smaller Muslim League parties, which is a bit conservative, but liberal in the sense of economics. Mostly based in Punjab province.
-MQM, they are the crazy party, who want Pakistan want to be broken up and want to establish Jinnahpur. But from the times, they have condomned their old actions, but they are still some crazy aspect of left. Musharaf is part of this political party.
-Tarieq-e-Inshaff(Movement for Fairness) - Imran Khan's party. They want the end of Musharaf rule and want a free democratic system.
The Pakistani Military is very corrupt and majority of the Pakistani hate them. As they seem to be like a political party themselves.
Bhutto and Shariff are both corrupt because they stole all the money that is given to Pakistani Treasury's money and put it their own companies and funds. Thus, they both are very bad candidates for democracy.
CrushDance
Banned
Well 2 weeks before elections does seem a bit fishy...ElectricBlue187 said:
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
Maximilian E. said:
I think it was Musharref who "supported" the Taliban. Supported in quotes cuz it was'nt some US/UK friendship but more about politics that even involves the Kashmir dispute with India.
The beef with Benazir was more on corruption and how she or the people around her ran the government. In other words she was a bad politician with good ideas.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Maximilian E. said:
She was pro Taliban because it was the alternative to Hekmatyar (sp?) and Massoud's civil war in Afghanistan in the early 90s. Taliban was the most peaceful alternative to those two, which were still using weapons that the West gave them in the 1980s.
Taliban provided stability. The rest did not. So she was a fervent backer of the Taliban when they were emerging as a serious power in Afghanistan. Bhutto, like several others, wanted a return of the old silk roads for easier trade, and safe passage for pipelines that would pump oil and natural gas. These trade routes went through Afghanistan. So her, along with others, backed the Taliban because they saw it as the end of the Afghan civil war.
scorcho said:
I don't think this would really be in Musharraf's interests. IIRC, his faction sort of stuck a deal where Bhutto would return, participate in the election (rather than having a rabble-rousing boycott), and share power after winning some seats.
She was meant to be sop to reformists while giving Musharraf a wider power base in the civilian government. Of course, I also heard that Zalmay Khalilzad is pretty anti-Musharraf and he's been driving Pakistan policy recently, so that maybe the dynamic was changing to a point where Bhutto would try to push Musharraf out altogether.
I dunno.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
@ Pakistan a week or two ago. Returned to Canada few hours ago, and the first thing i see is this...
R.I.P. Benazir Bhutto.
R.I.P. Benazir Bhutto.
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
thekad said:
Yeah. I just hope that whoever is in power won't make the mistakes Carter and Reagan made, which was basically to flood opposition groups with weapons and money and letting them do whatever the fuck they want.
the NYT pointed out that Bhutto was quite a bit the dissembler - no one really knew her true intentions considering she had her hand both in the reform and Musharaff camps.Zapages said:
the military never liked Bhutto, but it's unlikely an attack could occur without Musharaff's approval. i'm not sure if it was in his interest to have her assassinated...yet
ElectricBlue187
Member
Sir Fragula said:
Maybe he's watching his back and staying indoors for awhile, eh?
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
Mandark said:
Exactly. Musharraf had nothing to gain from her death as it would only add fuel to the fire of his opposition.
I'd be willing to put money down on a fringe radical group acting independently from the Pakistani government.
While this news is indeed unfortunate for the dead, their loved ones, and Pakistan, I can't help but think that Bhutto must have known this was coming. She said in interviews that she realized the risk in advance of returning to Pakistan, and she's spent her weeks there dodging bomb after bomb with an increasingly, not decreasingly, belligerent Musharraf.
I mean, if he didn't get her, it was clear Al Qaeda would.
I feel worse for the Pakistani people stuck in Pakistan then for anyone who knew the risks to jump back into that hornet's nest. Granted, she was trying to do something great, but the timing was clearly inopportune and the cards stacked heavily against her even surviving, much less succeeding.
I mean, if he didn't get her, it was clear Al Qaeda would.
I feel worse for the Pakistani people stuck in Pakistan then for anyone who knew the risks to jump back into that hornet's nest. Granted, she was trying to do something great, but the timing was clearly inopportune and the cards stacked heavily against her even surviving, much less succeeding.
C'mon, scorcho. Which is more fun/likely to be the basis for a best-selling paperback thriller? Boring old intra-Pakistani regional and political conflicts, or an international conspiracy?
I think the Saudis trained an ultimate soldier to kill her, then sent in a suicide bomber afterwards to cover the tracks. But what happens when this weapon... has a conscience?
I think the Saudis trained an ultimate soldier to kill her, then sent in a suicide bomber afterwards to cover the tracks. But what happens when this weapon... has a conscience?
democracy can't flourish without the rule of law behind it. pakistan seems to have the political culture (at least within islamabad) to sustain it, but there are vast regions where militant fundamentalists have dominion.
the Saudi Terminator?Mandark said:
siamesedreamer
Banned
How does this change the political dynamics in Pakistan?
WrathOfOtaibah
Banned
thekad said:
Yeah but this is the cycle of how things have been in Pakistan:
- Civilian government gets corrupt, military overthrows them.
- Military government gets corrupt, civilian actions overthrow them.
Bhutto was quite corrupt herself, once being sacked for corruption when she was Prime Minister. The whole system needs to be started from scratch in Pakistan.
~Devil Trigger~
In favor of setting Muslim women on fire
scorcho said:
and thats the problem, you cant have anything near democracy with with the rise Religious fundamentalism.
~Devil Trigger~ said:
I don't think the religious aspect is the problem. It's that in this case, the fundamentalists are the authority rather than the government. It would be just as bad if local tribal heads or drug traffickers wielded that sort of power.
As long as fundies accept the government's rules and monopoly on force, there's no threat to the system. See the American midwest.
Mandark said:
Yeah, I don't see this as being that different from the situation in Lebanon.
With nukes.
Therefore, I give a shit about the stability of Pakistan. I'd much rather have a tyrannical dictator hell-bent on not using nukes, then a destabilized region that potentially exposes the weapons to radical fundamentalists in the name of a democratic coup.
build up the state institutions first. placate tribal leaders by building local institutions around them with the understanding that final dominion rests with the central government. don't rush to democratize the government too quickly as it has all too often been victim to corruption and weakening its central authority/legitimacy. authoritarianism could be considered in the short-term to legitimize rule of law and for the state to have a monopoly of violence over the country.
ElectricBlue187
Member
scorcho said:
and then our hypothetical benevolent authoritarian leader will gladly give up power at some point for free democratic elections HELLLO PUTIN!
First off guys Zapages's views on the MQM are complete conspiracy theory tin foil hat stuff which is weird since the MQM is not a major player at all in Pakistani politics. In fact the only people who have less influence than the MQM is Imran Khan's party.
I support Musharaff's idea of creating a stable country that can attract foreign investment and use that plus western aid to build up the civillian infrastructure. That is the only way up for Pakistan. Now, sadly, stability and democracy seem to be mutually exclusive in Pakistan and as such I am a supporter of his. He was doing fine in getting more foreign investment in Pakistan until the whole war on terror thing happened but he at least managed to parlay that into huge amounts of aid. Edit: Am a happy about him being a dictator? Hell no. But he is a better leader and been more effective than Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. I don't mind sticking with what works.
As for "shit's really going to hit the fan now" ideas.... shit hit the fan a long time ago. It was a lot of shit and this is the fallout. I've got family in Pakistan and tomorrow they'll just get on with it. They'll be a bit more cautious and this will reinforce their inclination to STAY THE HELL OUT OF POLITICS, but other than that life will continue.
Edit: Also dear lord, Musharraf is a part of the Army, they don't give a shit about the MQM one way or the other.
I support Musharaff's idea of creating a stable country that can attract foreign investment and use that plus western aid to build up the civillian infrastructure. That is the only way up for Pakistan. Now, sadly, stability and democracy seem to be mutually exclusive in Pakistan and as such I am a supporter of his. He was doing fine in getting more foreign investment in Pakistan until the whole war on terror thing happened but he at least managed to parlay that into huge amounts of aid. Edit: Am a happy about him being a dictator? Hell no. But he is a better leader and been more effective than Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. I don't mind sticking with what works.
As for "shit's really going to hit the fan now" ideas.... shit hit the fan a long time ago. It was a lot of shit and this is the fallout. I've got family in Pakistan and tomorrow they'll just get on with it. They'll be a bit more cautious and this will reinforce their inclination to STAY THE HELL OUT OF POLITICS, but other than that life will continue.
Edit: Also dear lord, Musharraf is a part of the Army, they don't give a shit about the MQM one way or the other.
That's the problem. The only people that would overthrow him are people who would be far more hostile to the West. Do you really want someone in there who's going to create a nuclear showdown with India on Chinas border over Kashmir? Do you want someone who's not even going to give the illusion of assisting the West with intelligence info about the terror cells in his own country?android said:
Musharraf is a necessary evil, imo, unless you want even more war. Don't jump to conclusions that he's behind this.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked