[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
doogie wrote:
Who would blow themselves up for Musharraf?
My thoughts exactly.[/quote]
And what other suicide bombings was Musharraf behind? Can anyone name one incident?
Meanwhile, suicide bombings by al-qaeda members are happening daily in Iraq. Stands to reason they might just be behind it.
Bhutto also was threatened by al-qaeda. You may blame Musharraf for a lack of security, but how do you secure an area from a suicide bomber with a bomb hidden on him?
[quote]dennis3k wrote:
John S. wrote:
lixy wrote:
John S. wrote:
Guess it’s time for us to fix shit again.
You do realize Pakistan is a far bigger threat to the world than Iraq ever was, don’t you? Putting aside the nukes, it’s a nest for terrorists and Wahabbis.
So then I take it we have your permission to go fuck them up?
The world would be a sad place without us always fixing shit.
GOD
I hope this is Sarcasm[/quote]
It has been proven over and over, the rest of the world needs us to save there asses.
Machiavellian Musharraf
[i]THE 42-day drama in Pakistan is far from over; the declaration of emergency and the lifting of emergency are part of a charade, behind which exists a complex power play between Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, various camps within the military elite, and the US government. The Pakistani people are the least relevant to these calculations, although every player never fails to justify unwarranted actions in their name.
General Musharraf�??s motives for declaring emergency on November 3 are far from enigmatic. To guarantee his political future, Musharraf acted in the decisive, uncompromising fashion of a military man: first he brought the country to a state of suspended animation, then he restructured the government, judiciary, parliament and constitution to align them with his interests. Once these changes were enacted, he revoked the 42-day state of emergency, and even further promised �??absolutely�?? free and transparent legislative elections on January 8 next year.
The Bush administration�??s placatory response to Musharraf�??s actions (not going further than carefully-worded, benign condemnations) is not the only thing that makes it hard to substantiate the claim that Musharraf acted independently of the US or at the behest of some elements in the Pakistani military alone. Following September 11, 2001, and the invasion of Afghanistan soon after, Musharraf has become one of America�??s most faithful allies in the region. US aid to Pakistan multiplied and spent with little accountability. According to Jeffrey D Sachs, a Professor of Economics at Columbia University, �??75 per cent of the $10 billion in US aid has gone to the Pakistani military, ostensibly to reimburse Pakistan for its contribution to the �??war on terror�??, and to help it buy F-16s and other weapons systems. Another 16 per cent went straight to the Pakistani budget, no questions asked. That left less than 10 per cent for development and humanitarian assistance.�??
The Pakistani president is Machiavellian part and parcel. Contrary to appearances, he knows his limits and plays by the unwritten rules of power. When he declared emergency, he cited two objectives with underlying messages.
The first was aimed at his detractors who he claimed had mounted a �??conspiracy�?? to destabilise the country and his rule; as this conspiracy allegedly involved the judiciary, it justified his purge campaign.
The second message cleverly transcended all of that to reel in the US and its �??war on terror�??. Indeed, according to this logic, Musharraf needed a state of emergency to combat a Taleban-inspired insurgency stemming from the tribal areas in the North West Frontier Province. With the US and NATO fighting their own Taleban and Taleban-inspired insurgency in Afghanistan, Musharraf�??s actions in Islamabad were meant to supplement the incessant efforts at curbing the terrorist resurgence in the entire region.
It is hardly news that countries which to utilise �??war on terror�?? reasoning to justify violating human rights and democracy in their own countries are often �?? if not always �?? American allies or clients.
Musharraf must have understood that his failure to cooperate with US military plans would invite US wrath and hasten his exit (violent or otherwise). While his �??cooperation�?? was hardly optional, it also had its rewards. One of these was a free hand to alter internal political structures, so long as they didn�??t in any way interfere with US interests. Musharraf tested this unspoken understanding, and the Bush administration kept true to its word �?? until the US Congress decided to interfere.
At the same time that Musharraf began decrying the Taleban-inspired insurgency in the tribal areas, US officials began highlighting �?? if not manipulating �?? intelligence that exaggerated the same threat.
For example, US Defence Secretary Robert M Gates said in a media briefing on December 21 that Al Qaeda insurgents are shifting focus to Pakistan, threatening the country and its �??people�??. Gates dismissed the Taleban�??s violent return to Afghanistan, even mocking the over-publicised spring offensive. �??The spring offensive we expected from the Taleban became NATO’s spring offensive," he told journalists in Washington. Why this sudden change of priorities, and why did they coincide so well with Musharraf�??s own changes?
The shift �?? which has made Pakistan the primary battleground, as opposed to its previous position as a less important frontier than Afghanistan �?? could mean a major strategic change in US military policy toward Pakistan in the future. It also emphasises the importance of the role played by Musharraf and his regime.
Musharraf�??s validation is urgently needed by the Bush administration now that Congress has passed the spending bill, putting limits on $300 million of US military aid to Pakistan. A sum of $250 million is be used strictly for counter-terrorism operation, and the delivery of the rest hinges on Pakistan�??s success �?? or failure �?? in living up to the Congress�?? strict conditions. This deviation, if not contained quickly, might cause a rift and future difficulties for the US in Pakistan, especially among disgruntled military figures competing for power, privilege and contracts. For now, the White House has gone on crisis management mode, touting the January 8 elections and paying lip service to democracy, free media access and so forth.
One of those involved in defending Musharraf�??s record is US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher, who, on December 20, said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should be able to report that Pakistan is on its way toward full restoration of democracy. “We’re trying to keep moving toward elections that are as fair and as free as possible. We do think there are (additional) steps that can be taken and will be taken,” Boucher said.
The US administration and Congress are likely to clash over the best ways to control Pakistan, or �?? to put it mildly �?? to ensure Pakistan�??s continuous cooperation in the US �??war on terror�??. However the clash manifests, the resulting US foreign policy posture is likely to affect changes �?? substantial or otherwise �?? in US policy toward Pakistan, resulting in further interference in the country�??s internal affairs, deepening the discord and fuelling more violence. Indeed, it may endanger the future of genuine democracy in Pakistan for years to come.[/i]
[quote]Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:
Guess it’s time for us to fix shit again.
Oh, kind of like how we “fixed” Iraq?
Let the Pakistanis figure out their mess.
Dustin[/quote]
What part of fixed don’t you like, the fact that they have democracy or the fact that Saddam is not sending them to torture centers for there winter vacations? We are moving in a very good direction in Iraq, you know helping them become stable.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:
Guess it’s time for us to fix shit again.
Oh, kind of like how we “fixed” Iraq?
Let the Pakistanis figure out their mess.
Dustin
What part of fixed don’t you like, the fact that they have democracy or the fact that Saddam is not sending them to torture centers for there winter vacations? We are moving in a very good direction in Iraq, you know helping them become stable.[/quote]
God…if thats what some people actually believe, then thats just scary
[quote]dennis3k wrote:
John S. wrote:
Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:
Guess it’s time for us to fix shit again.
Oh, kind of like how we “fixed” Iraq?
Let the Pakistanis figure out their mess.
Dustin
What part of fixed don’t you like, the fact that they have democracy or the fact that Saddam is not sending them to torture centers for there winter vacations? We are moving in a very good direction in Iraq, you know helping them become stable.
God…if thats what some people actually believe, then thats just scary[/quote]
Hey, dennis.
He’s pointing out the fact that some people like to have it both ways. First, they acknowledge that a nation is dangerous. They rant and rave about the U.S. not dealing with it. Then, the U.S. deals with it, then said people rant and rave against the “imperialist Americans.”
If the U.S. attacked Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, lixy would be screaming his head off about our “ulterior motives.”
JeffR
[quote]dennis3k wrote:
John S. wrote:
Dustin wrote:
John S. wrote:
Guess it’s time for us to fix shit again.
Oh, kind of like how we “fixed” Iraq?
Let the Pakistanis figure out their mess.
Dustin
What part of fixed don’t you like, the fact that they have democracy or the fact that Saddam is not sending them to torture centers for there winter vacations? We are moving in a very good direction in Iraq, you know helping them become stable.
God…if thats what some people actually believe, then thats just scary[/quote]
Conceive of this, Dennis: that those people really are trying to scare you with that stuff. It’s what they do in this life.
[quote]John S. wrote:
What part of fixed don’t you like, the fact that they have democracy or the fact that Saddam is not sending them to torture centers for there winter vacations? We are moving in a very good direction in Iraq, you know helping them become stable.[/quote]
I don’t like using “fixed” because we’ve done just the opposite. Iraq was stable. Iraq didn’t have terrorists running around in its borders. The country had one of the highest literacy rates in the world and Iraqis (all of them) had health care, as poor as it might have been. There is a significant amount of Americans who don’t even have poor health care.
Iraq doesn’t have democracy. It has what the American government wants it to have. No Shia leader, that isn’t a puppet of the U.S., will ever be elected or allowed to have power.
Lastly, the well being of Iraqis was never an issue with the West until Saddam didn’t do what we told him to do. He gassed and killed his own people throughout the 1980s, all the while being supported by the U.S. government. Why, in 2003, did the well being of Iraqis suddenly become a concern?
Don’t believe everything your TV tells you.
Dustin
Check this shit out, why haven’t we heard about this in the US media?
Click on watch the report
Check that, CNN now has a little ditty on their site.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok. Am I the only one seeing a hand gun being fired in her direction while hearing shots go off?[/quote]
Heh. Thanks buff. Nobody responded so I figured I was seeing things. This is going to get real ugly as this footage circulates more and more.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Ok. Am I the only one seeing a hand gun being fired in her direction while hearing shots go off?
Heh. Thanks buff. Nobody responded so I figured I was seeing things. This is going to get real ugly as this footage circulates more and more. [/quote]
Here’s another one.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Video_The_most_conclusive_evidence_Bhutto_1230.html
[quote]lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
lixy wrote:
“The extremists need dictatorship to flourish, and dictatorship needs the extremists as a pre-text to continue in place.” – Benazir Bhutto (1953-2007)
Funny how this scenario always plays out so well in Muslim countries.
There’s nothing remotely funny about either dictatorships or extremists.
[/quote]
You are right, poor choice of words. I should have stated that it is typical how well this plays out with Muslims, not funny.
I would expect that Bhutto supporters would adhere to the democratic process that she advocated. Nowhere does the democratic process call for killing the opposition.
Bhutto’s supporters using violence just reinforces the idea that she is no different than Musharraf.
[quote]
The Al-Qaeda accusations are pretty convenient. I, for one, am not buying it unless I see evidence. There’s hardly any motive for Al-Qaeda to kill Bhutto. They may be kooks, but their attacks are far from random. The timing and target of this particular attack makes absolutely no sense.
Notice the tone of post around here. People are speaking of Musharraf making a “big mistake” but nobody’s condemning him (lack of evidence never stopped this crowd from condemning Syria every time a Lebanese get whacked).[/quote]
Since when has Al-Qaeda ever supported the democratic process? They clearly do not support this process and are just as suspect as Musharraf in this assassination. I’m not saying Musharraf didn’t support it, but Al-Qaeda is no better and they both have similar agendas that include oppressing people and the democratic process.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
lixy wrote:
…
Notice the tone of post around here. People are speaking of Musharraf making a “big mistake” but nobody’s condemning him (lack of evidence never stopped this crowd from condemning Syria every time a Lebanese get whacked).
Since when has Al-Qaeda ever supported the democratic process? They clearly do not support this process and are just as suspect as Musharraf in this assassination. I’m not saying Musharraf didn’t support it, but Al-Qaeda is no better and they both have similar agendas that include oppressing people and the democratic process.
[/quote]
I think it is unlikely Musharraf arranged it. As Doogie pointed out who the hell would be a suicide bomber for him? If it was a sniper then it would be more possible that it was Musharraf.
People are blaming him for providing inadequate security. That may be a fair assessment.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
lixy wrote:
…
Notice the tone of post around here. People are speaking of Musharraf making a “big mistake” but nobody’s condemning him (lack of evidence never stopped this crowd from condemning Syria every time a Lebanese get whacked).
Since when has Al-Qaeda ever supported the democratic process? They clearly do not support this process and are just as suspect as Musharraf in this assassination. I’m not saying Musharraf didn’t support it, but Al-Qaeda is no better and they both have similar agendas that include oppressing people and the democratic process.
I think it is unlikely Musharraf arranged it. As Doogie pointed out who the hell would be a suicide bomber for him? If it was a sniper then it would be more possible that it was Musharraf.
People are blaming him for providing inadequate security. That may be a fair assessment.[/quote]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he warn her that there would be security problems with the march?
Here’s more…
Police officers had frisked the 3,000 to 4,000 people attending Thursday’s rally when they entered the park, but as the speakers from Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party droned on, the police abandoned many of their posts. As she drove out through the gate, her main protection appeared to be her own bodyguards, who wore their usual white T-shirts inscribed: “Willing to die for Benazir.”
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
…
Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t he warn her that there would be security problems with the march?
[/quote]
Quite possible, in fact likely but that doesn’t relieve him of providing adequate security. Of course adequate security might be martial law. It seems a no win situation over there.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Here’s more…
Police officers had frisked the 3,000 to 4,000 people attending Thursday’s rally when they entered the park, but as the speakers from Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party droned on, the police abandoned many of their posts. As she drove out through the gate, her main protection appeared to be her own bodyguards, who wore their usual white T-shirts inscribed: “Willing to die for Benazir.”
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/23829.html [/quote]
I believe you missed a quote from a Bhutto supporter:
[b]"Ghulam Mustafa, a witness at the scene, said he saw bodies with missing heads and limbs.
“This happens only in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan. Why not America?” he said.[/b]
Those peaceful Muslims at it again!
An interesting analysis of what Bhutto’s death means, both in Pakistan and to the U.S.:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=16562
LEDE:
Benazir Bhutto’s assassination leaves U.S. policy towards Pakistan in tatters�??but then, it was a pretty tattered policy to begin with. Too much of the U.S. approach�??by the Democrats, the media and the think-tank community, to an even greater degree than the administration�??has been based on three interlocking illusions: that Pakistan can be turned into a fully co-operative and obedient ally in the “war on terror” and the war in Afghanistan, when the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis oppose this and see it as contrary to Pakistan’s own interests; that the return of “democracy” in Pakistan, embodied in Ms Bhutto, would help to make Pakistan such an ally; that Pakistani society at present is capable of generating and supporting democracy in the Western sense; and that in overall U.S. strategy, it makes sense to subordinate Pakistan to the needs of the war in Afghanistan, rather than the other way round.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
An interesting analysis of what Bhutto’s death means, both in Pakistan and to the U.S.:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=16562
LEDE:
Benazir Bhutto’s assassination leaves U.S. policy towards Pakistan in tatters�??but then, it was a pretty tattered policy to begin with. Too much of the U.S. approach�??by the Democrats, the media and the think-tank community, to an even greater degree than the administration�??has been based on three interlocking illusions: that Pakistan can be turned into a fully co-operative and obedient ally in the “war on terror” and the war in Afghanistan, when the overwhelming majority of Pakistanis oppose this and see it as contrary to Pakistan’s own interests; that the return of “democracy” in Pakistan, embodied in Ms Bhutto, would help to make Pakistan such an ally; that Pakistani society at present is capable of generating and supporting democracy in the Western sense; and that in overall U.S. strategy, it makes sense to subordinate Pakistan to the needs of the war in Afghanistan, rather than the other way round.[/quote]
What Bhutto’s death means is the ISI is in charge in Pakistan, and was certainly known in the US beforehand. The clean shaven fella with the dark shades and pistol in hand was certainly ISI.