Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 30 of 30
  1. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    I feel as though I must revise and amend my earlier confident assertions about Musharraf.

    While its still very much my view that he had no direct inolvement in her murder, I now suspect that he and his security services were cognitively indifferent as to how poor her security was.
    I fear that everyone has missed the point here. I have yet to have seen anyone faithfully describe the countenance of present day Pakistan.

    While it was manifestly obvious that Musharraf did not provide adequate security for Bhutto, and while Bhutto - in fact - chose privately retained security agents to guard her well-being, all of this is superfluous to the problems that grip Pakistan.

    It was not Musharraf that killed Bhutto. It was not, as Barack Hussein and Ron Paul would have you believe, American policy that killed Bhutto. Pakistan killed Benazir Bhutto. A simple examination of the country, and the events since the return of Mrs. B's return to Pakistan, leads the observer to that stark and rather troubling conclusion.

    A recent CNN poll showed that approval ratings in Pakistan broke down in the following way:

    68% for Bhutto
    46% for Al Qaeda
    38% for Musharraf
    9% for Bush

    The troubling figure here is that almost half of Pakistan does not have a problem with Al Qaeda. Any US politican would love to get 46% of anything these days.

    Western media had portrayed Bhutto as the second coming. The reality here is that her Western reputation outstripped her popularity at home. The description that Bhutto is (or was) the light of democracy in Pakistan is a dubious one at best. The western press, essentially, manufactured her popularity.

    The reality on the ground in Pakistan is that Bhutto was a polarizing figure. Consider, for the moment, that there are still significant factions that despise the notion of a female leader and do not wish to see that come to pass again. There are those who also remember her deep collaborations with the Russians during their little foray into Afghanistan. Then, of course, the question of corruption which, to be fair, is a way of life in many parts of the world, but nevertheless has been a charge that has stuck to Bhutto's tenure like a bad case of the clap.

    As it stands, Pakistan is a country that cannot control it's borders (which make our own border crisis all the more urgent, but that is a story for another day). This facilitates collaboration with jihadists and this is why many jihadists call Pakistan home. They are, in fact, welcomed into many Pakistani homes - as seen in the American UAV strike from a year or two back that killed scores of jihadists and those that welcomed them.

    Whether we choose to admit it or not, the problem with Pakistan is Pakistanis The quarrel here is not with a repressive regime. It is with the people of Pakistan. They want Islamic fundamentalism. They want Sharia law.

    It was the aforementioned 46% of Pakistan that almost killed Bhutto at the airport when she returned to Pakistan. It was the same 46% of Pakistan that managed to complete the deal in Rawalpindi. It is the same 46% of Pakistan that wants to do the same to Musharraf, but has not succeeded as of yet, in doing so.

    If the United States, and the West, is to prevail against radical jihadists, it is going to have to make the concerted effort to actually KILL the jihadists. And that is a target that lives both in the mountains of Afghanistan as well as in a great deal of many homes in Pakistan and the Middle East. The war against America, and the West by extension, emanates from those two places and many points in between.

    So the question becomes two-fold and both the answers are in serious doubt. The first part of the question is whether or not we actually have the resources to confront this threat? Considering this administration has spent more to fortify our military more than any other, one wonders if that is enough? And one wonders how disasterous the state of affairs would be had that money NOT been spent?

    The second part of the question is vastly more complicated and concerns itself with political will. Americans are used to relatively quick conflicts. Our endurance in fighting wars is extremely limited. Do we have the political will to fight the war against the West?

    Probably not.

    However, if we are interested, at all, in prevailing, some soul searching will have to occur. To win the fight means you have to accurately gauge the enemy - no matter how unpopularly-targeted or innocent looking the enemy may appear.

    Not only is the enemy in the palace, but the enemy comes in the form of a 14 year old body holding a kalashnikov and a bag of anthrax.
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I fear that everyone has missed the point here. I have yet to have seen anyone faithfully describe the countenance of present day Pakistan.

    While it was manifestly obvious that Musharraf did not provide adequate security for Bhutto, and while Bhutto - in fact - chose privately retained security agents to guard her well-being, all of this is superfluous to the problems that grip Pakistan.

    It was not Musharraf that killed Bhutto. It was not, as Barack Hussein and Ron Paul would have you believe, American policy that killed Bhutto. Pakistan killed Benazir Bhutto. A simple examination of the country, and the events since the return of Mrs. B's return to Pakistan, leads the observer to that stark and rather troubling conclusion.

    A recent CNN poll showed that approval ratings in Pakistan broke down in the following way:

    68% for Bhutto
    46% for Al Qaeda
    38% for Musharraf
    9% for Bush

    The troubling figure here is that almost half of Pakistan does not have a problem with Al Qaeda. Any US politican would love to get 46% of anything these days.

    Western media had portrayed Bhutto as the second coming. The reality here is that her Western reputation outstripped her popularity at home. The description that Bhutto is (or was) the light of democracy in Pakistan is a dubious one at best. The western press, essentially, manufactured her popularity.

    The reality on the ground in Pakistan is that Bhutto was a polarizing figure. Consider, for the moment, that there are still significant factions that despise the notion of a female leader and do not wish to see that come to pass again. There are those who also remember her deep collaborations with the Russians during their little foray into Afghanistan. Then, of course, the question of corruption which, to be fair, is a way of life in many parts of the world, but nevertheless has been a charge that has stuck to Bhutto's tenure like a bad case of the clap.

    As it stands, Pakistan is a country that cannot control it's borders (which make our own border crisis all the more urgent, but that is a story for another day). This facilitates collaboration with jihadists and this is why many jihadists call Pakistan home. They are, in fact, welcomed into many Pakistani homes - as seen in the American UAV strike from a year or two back that killed scores of jihadists and those that welcomed them.

    Whether we choose to admit it or not, the problem with Pakistan is Pakistanis The quarrel here is not with a repressive regime. It is with the people of Pakistan. They want Islamic fundamentalism. They want Sharia law.

    It was the aforementioned 46% of Pakistan that almost killed Bhutto at the airport when she returned to Pakistan. It was the same 46% of Pakistan that managed to complete the deal in Rawalpindi. It is the same 46% of Pakistan that wants to do the same to Musharraf, but has not succeeded as of yet, in doing so.

    If the United States, and the West, is to prevail against radical jihadists, it is going to have to make the concerted effort to actually KILL the jihadists. And that is a target that lives both in the mountains of Afghanistan as well as in a great deal of many homes in Pakistan and the Middle East. The war against America, and the West by extension, emanates from those two places and many points in between.

    So the question becomes two-fold and both the answers are in serious doubt. The first part of the question is whether or not we actually have the resources to confront this threat? Considering this administration has spent more to fortify our military more than any other, one wonders if that is enough? And one wonders how disasterous the state of affairs would be had that money NOT been spent?

    The second part of the question is vastly more complicated and concerns itself with political will. Americans are used to relatively quick conflicts. Our endurance in fighting wars is extremely limited. Do we have the political will to fight the war against the West?

    Probably not.

    However, if we are interested, at all, in prevailing, some soul searching will have to occur. To win the fight means you have to accurately gauge the enemy - no matter how unpopularly-targeted or innocent looking the enemy may appear.

    Not only is the enemy in the palace, but the enemy comes in the form of a 14 year old body holding a kalashnikov and a bag of anthrax.
    this is an intersting area -- I've been planning to intiate a new thread on it and related issues -- if you'll let me, I'll do it when I'm free later this evening...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3.    #23  
    Doctors Cite Government Pressure to Keep Silent On Bhutto

    By Emily Wax and Griff Witte
    Washington Post Foreign Service
    Tuesday, January 1, 2008

    RAWALPINDI, Pakistan, Dec. 31 -- Pakistani authorities have pressured the medical personnel who tried to save Benazir Bhutto's life to remain silent about what happened in her final hour and have removed records of her treatment from the facility, according to doctors.

    In interviews, doctors who were at Bhutto's side at Rawalpindi General Hospital said they were under extreme pressure not to share details about the nature of the injuries that the opposition leader suffered in an attack here Dec. 27.

    "The government took all the medical records right after Ms. Bhutto's time of death was read out," said a visibly shaken doctor who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. Sweating and putting his head in his hands, he said: "Look, we have been told by the government to stop talking. And a lot of us feel this is a disgrace."

    The doctors now find themselves at the center of a political firestorm over the circumstances of Bhutto's death. The government has said Bhutto, 54, was killed after the force of a suicide bombing caused her head to slam against the lever of her vehicle's sunroof. Bhutto's supporters have pointed to video footage, including a new amateur video released Monday, as proof that she was killed by gunfire.

    The truth about what happened has serious implications in Pakistan. The ability of a gunman to fire at Bhutto from close range, as alleged by her supporters, would suggest that an assassin was able to breach government security in a city that serves as headquarters of the Pakistani military , bolstering her supporters' claims that the government failed to provide her with adequate protection.

    If a gunman were to blame, it would also raise questions as to why the government has for days insisted otherwise. Bhutto's supporters have called for an international investigation.

    The government has repeatedly dismissed allegations of a coverup, and some U.S. medical experts, when asked Monday to review an official hospital description of her wounds, speculated that a skull fracture and not a bullet wound killed Bhutto.

    The medical personnel in Rawalpindi, meanwhile, have mostly remained quiet.

    "Our doctors have become caught up in this very emotional and political issue," said Fayyaz Ahmed Khan, the doctors' supervisor at Rawalpindi General. "It's a terrible position for our medical professions to be in."

    A newly released video that was obtained by Britain's Channel 4 and broadcast Monday cast doubt on the government's claims and appeared to corroborate witnesses' stories. The footage appeared to show a gunman and a suspected suicide bomber approaching Bhutto's sport-utility vehicle. Seconds later, the video showed gunfire and Bhutto's hair and scarf being blown back just as a bomb explodes.

    Government officials identified Baitullah Mehsud, a pro-Taliban commander in the restive South Waziristan region, as the organizer of Bhutto's killing. But some observers said the government has been too quick to blame the attack on the Taliban.

    Jameel Yusuf, a lead investigator in the 2002 disappearance of American journalist Daniel Pearl in Karachi, said the Pakistani government had blundered badly by not sealing off the crime scene. Moments after Bhutto was killed, workers hosed down the blood at the blast site before any evidence could be collected.

    "When you're dealing with a murder of this nature, you need to have forensics," Yusuf said.

    Several witnesses say they had yet to be interviewed by police.

    Kamran Nazir, 19, was badly injured by shrapnel at the rally where Bhutto was killed. On Monday, he was at Rawalpindi General, with his father at his bedside. His breathing was labored, and the top layer of skin on his face was singed off. He said he was shocked that police had not questioned him.

    "Why is no one asking me what happened? It's important to know the truth," he said as his father's eyes went wet.

    "The truth is, there really is no investigation at all," said Babar Awan, a top official in Bhutto's Pakistan People's Party who said he saw Bhutto's body after the attack and identified two clearly defined bullet wounds -- entry and exit points.

    He said that the principal professor of surgery at the hospital, Muhammad Mussadiq Khan, was "extremely nervous, but eventually told me that Bhutto had died of a bullet wound."


    "Why was this man so nervous?" Awan said. "He told me firsthand he was under pressure not to talk about how she died."

    Reached at his home in Islamabad, Khan declined to comment, saying he worked for a government hospital and was trying to "do my duty and remain a doctor." In published reports in the English-language newspaper Dawn, Khan has changed his story on multiple occasions, first speaking about bullet wounds and later backing away from those comments.

    Over the weekend, Athar Minallah, a board member at Rawalpindi General, e-mailed journalists Bhutto's medical report. The report, which was separate from documents that doctors say have been confiscated, describes a deep wound in Bhutto's head that was leaking brain matter.

    No "foreign body" was found in the wound, the report says, and no exit wound was recorded. But in an X-ray of Bhutto's skull, the doctors identified "two to three tiny radio-densities." Minallah said in an interview that the report suggested those were bullet fragments.

    U.S. medical experts said the "radio-densities" were probably not bullets.

    Thomas M. Scalea, physician in chief of the shock trauma center at the University of Maryland Medical Center, said that while there was no evidence of a bullet wound, he was also perplexed by how the blunt force of Bhutto's head against an object could have caused brain damage severe enough to kill her so quickly.

    "The whole thing strikes me as very unusual," said Scalea.

    Bhutto's widower and the interim leader of her party, Asif Ali Zardari, has requested an investigation into her death by the United Nations.

    President Pervez Musharraf's spokesman, retired Gen. Rashid Qureshi, said Musharraf is "considering" an offer from the British government to assist in an investigation. Qureshi said Bhutto's husband bore responsibility for the controversy, because he had denied the government permission to conduct an autopsy immediately after Bhutto's death, on the grounds that it could not be trusted.

    "The body can be exhumed now if the family allows," Qureshi said. "There's no problem with that."
  4.    #24  
    Musharraf: "Bhutto Bears Responsibility for Death"

    WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf conceded that a gunman may have shot Benazir Bhutto but said the opposition leader exposed herself to danger and bore responsibility for her death, CBS News said on Saturday.

    Musharraf was also quoted as telling the CBS "60 Minutes" program to be broadcast on Sunday that his government did everything it could to provide security for Bhutto, who was killed last week in a gun and suicide-bomb attack after a political rally.

    "For standing up outside the car, I think it was she to blame alone. Nobody else. Responsibility is hers," Musharraf said in the interview taped on Saturday morning.

    Pakistan's government has said Bhutto died when she struck her head on a handle on her vehicle's sunroof -- a contention widely derided in Pakistan where many people suspect Musharraf's government of complicity. The government has also blamed al Qaeda for the attack.

    Musharraf was asked by CBS, which provided excerpts of the interview, whether a gunshot could have caused Bhutto's head injury. He replied, "Yes, yes."
  5. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #25  
    Nothing particularly unbelieveable about it. Musharraf is dancing on the edge of a razor blade. And it is no secret that Bhutto had infuriated her security team time and time again by being careless in public, with her lack of judgement finally catching up to her with fatal results in Rawalpindi.
  6.    #26  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Nothing particularly unbelieveable about it. Musharraf is dancing on the edge of a razor blade. And it is no secret that Bhutto had infuriated her security team time and time again by being careless in public, with her lack of judgement finally catching up to her with fatal results in Rawalpindi.
    Sounds like an apologia Nixon might have offered on November 23, 1963.
  7. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Sounds like an apologia Nixon might have offered on November 23, 1963.
    ....if you are a Harry Potter fan, perhaps.
  8.    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    ....if you are a Harry Potter fan, perhaps.
    Only in your widdle Muppet-World, sock-puppet!
  9. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Only in your widdle Muppet-World, sock-puppet!
    Of course, you are the expert in "little worlds", aren't you?
  10.    #30  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Of course, you are the expert in "little worlds", aren't you?
    Small, possibly, in comparison to each 'world' of the 5-fingered sock-puppet.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions