Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 30
  1.    #1  
    As filed under 'Unbelievable', with primary Allies like this, the US quota for enemies has been filled.

    ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf said the assassination of opposition leader Benazir Bhutto was the work of terrorists and he called on the people for their support.

    "This cruelty is the work of those terrorists with whom we are fighting," Musharraf said in a brief televised address.

    "The biggest threat to Pakistan and this nation is from these terrorists," he said. "I seek unity and support from the nation ... we will not sit and rest until we get rid of these terrorists, root them out."
    http://www.reuters.com/article/gc04/...30507620071227
  2. #2  
    though not entirely unexpected, her assassination and death is a genuine tragedy.

    I can't imagine that Musharraf had any role or interest in killing her. If anything she was an unannounced ally, an in effect shield against western pressures.

    Though she was a rallying figure for modernist opposition to Musharraf, she really represented no near term threat to him.

    Most importantly she supported Musharraf's crackdown against the devout militants and Al Qaida.

    I have no doubt that it was they who killed her. A woman, a westernist, a modernist, and a public advocate of force against them -- Al Qaida and their devout allies HATED her.

    Pakistan is an extraordinary unstable and divided place. Its dangers and complexities are under appreciated
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  3. #3  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Its dangers and complexities are under appreciated
    I fully agree with this statement from their obstruction in pursuing OBL to internal politics to terrorist orgs stance to nuke arsenal and to their international relations and grudges against neighboring countries.
  4. #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by HobbesIsReal View Post
    I fully agree with this statement from their obstruction in pursuing OBL to internal politics to terrorist orgs stance to nuke arsenal and to their international relations and grudges against neighboring countries.
    I was intending for awhile to intiate a discussion of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the rise of angry Islam in a thread called "Charlie Wilson's legacy" -- but maybe we can have it here...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  5.    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    though not entirely unexpected, her assassination and death is a genuine tragedy.
    'Tragedy' takes on a new dynamic, given the ill-conceived allie withwhich the US places its trust.

    I can't imagine that Musharraf had any role or interest in killing her.
    If governments, such as our own, are capable of whitewashing orchestrated foreign assassinations, rape, manipulations of democratically-held elections, etc, the government of Pakistan, clearly, should not be given a pass.

    If anything she was an unannounced ally, an in effect shield against western pressures.
    While she was a steadfast supporter against terrorism, there was no love lost between her and the dictator, Musharraf.

    Though she was a rallying figure for modernist opposition to Musharraf, she really represented no near term threat to him.
    Musharraf's minions, military, and puppet-Supreme Court, etc seem to differ.

    Most importantly she supported Musharraf's crackdown against the devout militants and Al Qaida.
    Crackdown, yes. Not Martial Law under the military leader who only obtained his role through a bloodbath military coup.

    I have no doubt that it was they who killed her. A woman, a westernist, a modernist, and a public advocate of force against them -- Al Qaida and their devout allies HATED her.
    As did Musharraf's minions equally.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    though not entirely unexpected, her assassination and death is a genuine tragedy.

    I can't imagine that Musharraf had any role or interest in killing her. If anything she was an unannounced ally, an in effect shield against western pressures.

    Though she was a rallying figure for modernist opposition to Musharraf, she really represented no near term threat to him.

    Most importantly she supported Musharraf's crackdown against the devout militants and Al Qaida.

    I have no doubt that it was they who killed her. A woman, a westernist, a modernist, and a public advocate of force against them -- Al Qaida and their devout allies HATED her.

    Pakistan is an extraordinary unstable and divided place. Its dangers and complexities are under appreciated
    Eloquently put. That woman had a pair made of titanium.
  7. #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    'Tragedy' takes on a new dynamic, given the ill-conceived ally with which the US places its trust.

    If governments, such as our own, are capable of whitewashing orchestrated foreign assassinations, rape, manipulations of democratically-held elections, etc, the government of Pakistan, clearly, should not be given a pass.

    While she was a steadfast supporter against terrorism, there was no love lost between her and the dictator, Musharraf.

    Musharraf's minions, military, and puppet-Supreme Court, etc seem to differ.

    Crackdown, yes. Not Martial Law under the military leader who only obtained his role through a bloodbath military coup.

    As did Musharraf's minions equally.
    In fairness you are hardly alone in your suspicion of Musharraf.

    Keith Oberman (who I respect deeply), postulated that same theory with far more confidence than it deserved.

    If she was murdered by a genuine suicide assassin, there's no doubt that he was connected to the Taliban or Al Qaida.

    Musharraf's minions -- no matter how devoted -- are not likely to kill themselves on his behalf.

    Reports on the specifics of what happened are still confused and unauthoritative. I've heard that she was first shot in the neck, and that the shooter then blew himself up killing a further dozen. That story seems a bit more complicated than I'd normally associate with a suicide bomber, but not unprecedented.

    The method Al Qaida employed to murder Massoud on the eve of 9/11 was far more complicated.

    Nevertheless, Bhutto herself suspected that Musharraf's forces were intentially weakening her security (by denying her proper jamming gear, foriegn body guards etc.) Her message from the grave accusing Musharraf's of being responsible for her death will be believed widely irrespective of its truth.

    Killing Bhutto a week before her likely election as leader of Pakistan, and throwing the country into chaos while sowing suspicion against Musharraf especially among the moderates, is Al Qaida's greatest success since Tora Bora.

    Moving forward the election must be postphoned for at least a month so that some stability can return and a replacement for Bhutto chosen. (I know a replacement for Bhutto has already been selected).

    As of now I understand that all opposition parties are going to boycott the vote.

    junior's demand that a vote happen no matter what bespeaks loudly of his ignorance...
    Last edited by BARYE; 12/30/2007 at 11:17 AM.
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
  8.    #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    In fairness you are hardly alone in your suspicion of Musharraf.

    Keith Oberman (who I respect deeply), postulated that same theory with far more confidence than it deserved.

    If she was murdered by a genuine suicide assassin, there's no doubt that he was connected to the Taliban or Al Qaida.

    Musharraf's minions -- no matter how devoted -- are not likely to kill themselves on his behalf.

    Reports on the specifics of what happened are still confused and unauthoritative. I've heard that she was first shot in the neck, and that the shooter then blew himself up killing a further dozen. That story seems a bit more complicated than I'd normally associate with a suicide bomber, but not unprecedented.

    The method Al Qaida employed to murder Massoud on the eve of 9/11 was far more complicated.

    Nevertheless, Bhutto herself suspected that Musharraf's forces were intentially weakening her security (by denying her proper jamming gear, foriegn body guards etc.) Her message from the grave accusing Musharraf's of being responsible for her death will be believed widely irrespective of its truth.

    Killing Bhutto a week before her likely election as leader of Pakistan, and throwing the country into chaos while sowing suspicion against Musharraf especially among the moderates, is Al Qaida's greatest success since Bora Bora.

    Moving forward the election must be postphoned for at least a month so that some stability can return and a replacement for Bhutto chosen. (I know a replacement for Bhutto has already been selected).

    As of now I understand that all opposition parties are going to boycott the vote.

    junior's demand that a vote happen no matter what bespeaks loudly of his ignorance...
    From a Point-A to Point-B perspective, I can follow your logic. However, the Middle East does not operate in such elementary ways, including Al Queda. When the US' most advanced thinking is that 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', they prove themselves to be blind to several other active dimensions employed for millenias. This represents the failed legacy of our Anglo-Saxon history if the US is not fully proficient in History, as underscored by the 9/11 Commission. Methods and manners are far too easy to replicate, given this dynamic. If that lesson has not already been learned, then you and I are already dead. Bhutto was quite correct, only 30 days ago, in referring to Musharraf as a brutal dictator.

    In short, we're in a quantum, multi-level chess match and the US is still playing checkers in its policies, its statements, its diplomacy, its military leadership. We must do better than we're currently able to imagine.
    Last edited by lifes2short; 12/28/2007 at 03:26 PM.
  9. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    As filed under 'Unbelievable', with primary Allies like this, the US quota for enemies has been filled.



    http://www.reuters.com/article/gc04/...30507620071227
    ^^
    It is ridiculous posts like these that legitimizes the notion that Internet access should be licensed.

    So there you have it. In Shortstuff's world:

    The US, and anything 'associated' with it = bad
    Al Qaeda = good
  10. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    In fairness you are hardly alone in your suspicion of Musharraf.
    ....for those who love a good conspiracy theory, at least.

    Keith Oberman....
    ....the alarmist imbecile of cable....

    postulated that same theory with far more confidence than it deserved.
    I suppose the snake oil salesman will always find one willing buyer, no matter how ridiculous the purported claims are.

    If she was murdered by a genuine suicide assassin, there's no doubt that he was connected to the Taliban or Al Qaida.
    What's this? You aren't blaming Bush?

    Reports on the specifics of what happened are still confused and unauthoritative. I've heard that she was first shot in the neck, and that the shooter then blew himself up killing a further dozen. That story seems a bit more complicated than I'd normally associate with a suicide bomber, but not unprecedented.
    Now they are saying she incurred a skull injury of some sort from ducking back into her car and smacking into something in the process.

    Hmmm...

    Killing Bhutto a week before her likely election as leader of Pakistan, and throwing the country into chaos while sowing suspicion against Musharraf especially among the moderates, is Al Qaida's greatest success since Bora Bora.
    I didn't know Al Qaeda operated on this most beautiful South Pacific island.

    junior's demand that a vote happen no matter what bespeaks loudly of his ignorance...
    Or, perhaps, he is trying to avoid Pakistan re-becoming the basket-case of years past?
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    ^^
    It is ridiculous posts like these that legitimizes the notion that Internet access should be licensed.

    So there you have it. In Shortstuff's world:

    The US, and anything 'associated' with it = bad
    Al Qaeda = good
    How typically and tragically irresponsible of you on a matter as sobering as this. With this last, distasteful move of yours, every US enemy just collectively said 'Checkmate!'
  12. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    How typically and tragically irresponsible of you on a matter as sobering as this. With this last, distasteful move of yours, every US enemy just collectively said 'Checkmate!'
    I believe we all realize by now that you hate America and wish it to become a socialist state where the individual gets trampled upon in the name of "the greater good", and will support any entity - violent and non-violent alike - that could make that happen. But to sit there and cardinally cast dispersons against those whose guilt is unclear speaks of your acute irresponsibility and lack of judgement.

    This is why the forum laughs at you when *you* speak of the rule of law. In one thread, you tar and feather the individual before the facts are known. In the next thread, you speak of (and consequently bastardize) the notion of habeas corpus, but belittle the discourse with your petty politics.

    Your incessant duplicity and vapid rhetoric are noted.
  13.    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I believe we all realize by now that you hate America and wish it to become a socialist state where the individual gets trampled upon in the name of "the greater good", and will support any entity - violent and non-violent alike - that could make that happen. But to sit there and cardinally cast dispersons against those whose guilt is unclear speaks of your acute irresponsibility and lack of judgement.
    Musharraf received no less from Buotto, herself, no less than 30 days ago, sock-puppet. But, thanks for speaking for all of humanity. Upgrading to a new sock, Chuckles?

    This is why the forum laughs at you when *you* speak of the rule of law. In one thread, you tar and feather the individual before the facts are known.
    Yet, the invisible boogie-man is most clearly guilty. Get a Rope, Festus!

    In the next thread, you speak of (and consequently bastardize) the notion of habeas corpus, but belittle the discourse with your petty politics.
    Politics has nothing to do with the right of Habeas Corpus. You continue to misread and/or misrepresent the facts, as if it's in your DNA.

    Your incessant duplicity and vapid rhetoric are noted.
    See above.
  14. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Musharraf received no less from Buotto, herself, no less than 30 days ago, sock-puppet.
    Is this what they are passing off as english these days to you whipper-snappers?

    Politics has nothing to do with the right of Habeas Corpus.
    That is correct, which makes the fact that you, relentlessly choose to mix the two all the more bewildering.
  15.    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    Is this what they are passing off as english these days to you whipper-snappers?
    Your pissing on Buotto's grave is duly noted.
  16. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Your pissing on Buotto's grave is duly noted.
    I **** on no one's grave. Your inability to articulate the point in a cogent manner is the problem here.

    For the record, I had no real problem with Bhutto just as I have no real problem with Musharraf.

    Bhutto was an unremarkable leader except for the fact that she was a woman. She addressed virtually none of her countries problems under her tenure, despite the fact that she enjoyed a stability that is not extant today.

    Musharraf, on the other hand, is someone who is under extraordinary pressure on many fronts. I do not criticize him too much for the simple fact that another leader in his shoes, under the same circumstances, would likely govern in much the same way.

    As such, I refuse to demonize one who blessing the other.

    No decent leader deserves the fate of assassination, but to martyrize on such a premise alone is to be ignorant of history.
  17.    #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by gojeda View Post
    I **** on no one's grave. Your inability to articulate the point in a cogent manner is the problem here.
    Your problem, not mine as you have, not once, shown no ability to communicate without flamebaiting when a differing point is presented. Yet the mantle of victim is clearly yours, Chuckles.

    For the record, I had no real problem with Bhutto just as I have no real problem with Musharraf.
    How convenient in your normally black-and-lilly-white world.

    Bhutto was an unremarkable leader except for the fact that she was a woman. She addressed virtually none of her countries problems under her tenure, despite the fact that she enjoyed a stability that is not extant today.
    Clearly, your depraved indifference is as telling as your pacification of brutal dictators when they suit your needs. Your right to life agenda is quite confused.


    Musharraf, on the other hand, is someone who is under extraordinary pressure on many fronts. I do not criticize him too much for the simple fact that another leader in his shoes, under the same circumstances, would likely govern in much the same way.
    How easily you gloss over how his majesty became Pakistan's leader. Bloody military coup, anyone? Don't ascend to leadership if the pressure is too much. But, as we all now know ... "It's hard work." LMFAO!

    As such, I refuse to demonize one who blessing the other.
    Like to try that again ... this time in English?

    No decent leader deserves the fate of assassination, but to martyrize on such a premise alone is to be ignorant of history.
    Your avoidance of history only serves your convenient apologist agenda. Tough how reality really works, eh, Chuckles?
  18. gojeda's Avatar
    Posts
    93 Posts
    Global Posts
    104 Global Posts
    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by lifes2short View Post
    Your problem, not mine as you have, not once, shown no ability to communicate without flamebaiting when a differing point is presented. Yet the mantle of victim is clearly yours, Chuckles.
    If is considered flamebaiting when I point out your poor sentence structure, so be it.

    How convenient in your normally black-and-lilly-white world.
    If I live in a black-and-white world, I would be singing Bhutto's praises while cursing Musharraf, or vice-versa.

    Swing and a miss there slugger.

    Clearly, your depraved indifference is as telling as your pacification of brutal dictators when they suit your needs. Your right to life agenda is quite confused.
    Musharraf has resorted to gassing his citizenry? Oh the horror!

    Shall I post a random pic, like you have above? OK - good, here is mine then.



    Ouch...that must have hurt.


    How easily you gloss over how his majesty became Pakistan's leader. Bloody military coup, anyone? Don't ascend to leadership if the pressure is too much. But, as we all now know ... "It's hard work." LMFAO!
    Well I am not sure of what bloody coup you are talking about. But history shows that Musharraf came to power - fairly or unfairly - in a bloodless coup.

    Since you live in a parallel universe, please do grace us with your fantastical view of history regarding this event.

    Your avoidance of history only serves your convenient apologist agenda. Tough how reality really works, eh, Chuckles?
    Petty politics again Shortstuff?
  19.    #19  
    [QUOTE=gojeda;1392518]If is considered flamebaiting when I point out your poor sentence structure, so be it.[quote]

    No, just petty.

    If I live in a black-and-white world, I would be singing Bhutto's praises while cursing Musharraf, or vice-versa.

    Swing and a miss there slugger.
    You know nothing of nobility and integrity from the pit in which you dwell. If you reach low enough, I'm sure Condi can give you a hand.

    Musharraf has resorted to gassing his citizenry? Oh the horror!
    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/helms.html Choke on it, Chuckles.



    Ouch...that must have hurt.
    Not a damn bit, Chuckles.

    Well I am not sure of what bloody coup you are talking about. But history shows that Musharraf came to power - fairly or unfairly - in a bloodless coup.
    Your ignorance of Musharraf's history in Pakistan looms large, sock-puppet.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    though not entirely unexpected, her assassination and death is a genuine tragedy.

    I can't imagine that Musharraf had any role or interest in killing her. ...

    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.

    Despite complaints that went to many in the west including american Senators, journalists, and officials from junior's administration, little was done to increase her security in the face of obvious well known threats.

    My theory is that while they did not neccasarily want her dead, they did want her to at the minimum be self constrained by fear -- to campaign less, to not directly expose herself to the crowds.

    Their hope would have been that at the least this would lessen the likelihood of her triumphing at the polls, and might even prompt her to flee back into exile.

    Yes her exposing herself while atop a vehicle amidst an uncontrolable crowd was extremely foolish. And some security was no doubt provided. But clearly more could and should have been done to protect her.


    Bhutto Video, Medical Report Raise Doubt

    Dec 31, 2007 By RAVI NESSMAN

    ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) - Aides to Benazir Bhutto charge that lax security allowed an assassin to approach within a few yards of her. But authorities insist it was her decision to open a hatch in her bombproof vehicle and chat with supporters that left her vulnerable.

    The dispute intensified as a video of the attack and an inconclusive medical report raised new doubts about the official explanation of her death and bolstered calls for an independent, international investigation.

    The new video footage, obtained by Britain's Channel 4 television, shows a man firing a pistol at Bhutto from just feet away as she poked her head out of the sunroof to greet a swarm of supporters. Her hair and shawl then jerked upward and she fell into the vehicle just before an explosion - apparently detonated by a second man - rocked the car.

    No police were seen trying to push the crowd away...

    Bhutto, who died Thursday in a gun and suicide bomb attack, reveled in personal campaigning, a trait that fueled her popularity but posed a challenge for her security forces.

    "She was a very brave lady and sometimes when you see the supporters and cheering crowds there is a tendency not to heed the security department, and that's exactly what happened, unfortunately," Interior Ministry spokesman Javed Iqbal Cheema said.

    Even before Bhutto returned to Pakistan in October from eight years in exile, she was warned about suicide squads. At her homecoming parade in Karachi, twin bombers struck her convoy, killing about 150 people, some of them the police assigned to protect her.

    But she complained bitterly in recent months that the government of President Pervez Musharraf was not giving her proper protection and ignoring specific security requests.

    "I have been made to feel insecure by his (Musharraf's) minions," she wrote in an October e-mail...

    At the Rawalpindi rally where Bhutto was slain, hundreds of police ringed the park where she spoke, frisking those entering and making most pass through metal detectors. Police snipers were in at least four positions on nearby rooftops. A 10-yard area was cordoned off in front of the stage, which was inspected by security officials, inspected by bomb-sniffing dogs, and flanked by armed, plainclothes guards.

    "There were ample security arrangements there," Rawalpindi police chief Saud Aziz said.

    The attack occurred when Bhutto's vehicle drove outside the park after the rally. Cheema said her vehicle was protected by four police mobile units comprising a total of 25 or 26 officers.

    "Why was the road not blocked and cleared of people when Benazir Bhutto was coming out, and why was the security so lax in and outside the ground?" asked Aghasiraj Durrani, a senior official in Bhutto's party who helped arrange Bhutto's security.

    Talat Masood, a former army general and security analyst, said specially trained officers should have been scanning the crowd for potential attackers and Bhutto's guards should have created a security perimeter.

    "The security undoubtedly was below the mark, much below the standards required for a leader of her stature," he said...
    755P Sprint SERO (upgraded from unlocked GSM 650 on T-Mobile)
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions