The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
You know, when I first saw the thread title I thought it said "Bluto" and I wondered what made Popeye finally snap.
Oh man, I thought I was the only one.
You're in good company.
Should I start shitting myself now? I've been shamefully distanced from world events so if anyone could outline the major ramifications of this assassination it'd be appreciated.
You know, when I first saw the thread title I thought it said "Bluto" and I wondered what made Popeye finally snap.
Oh man, I thought I was the only one.
You're in good company.
Should I start shitting myself now? I've been shamefully distanced from world events so if anyone could outline the major ramifications of this assassination it'd be appreciated.
She was largely the face of the opposition to Musharref and likely to be either PM or leader of a large block of parliament after next month's sham election. Now that mantle will fall on Sharif, who wasn't quite as eloquent/liked/powerful. So, Musharef is basically going to have an easier time being a despot now.
Should I start shitting myself now? I've been shamefully distanced from world events so if anyone could outline the major ramifications of this assassination it'd be appreciated.
Bhutto's party is the largest in Pakistan, and they're pissed. Her sometime opponent, Sharif, is using the opportunity to call out President Musharraf and says that they're going to boycot elections. We all know how well boycotting of elections works out... see Iraq (I never understood the thought process there... "we're angry so we're not going to vote, so our enemies gain more power over us!").
If the People's Populist Party thinks that Musharraf is complicit in Bhutto's murder, and they boycot elections and rebel rather than try to oust him the democratic way, it will mean a completely destabilized Pakistan. Pakistan wasn't too stable to begin with, with lawless areas and many, many armed militia groups ready to make the place into the next Afghanistan or Iraq... except that there's nukes. Musharraf will have to try to maintain control while simultaniously protecting the nuclear arsenal; if just one nuke gets taken by one of the dozens of likely suspects, we could have a serious international crisis on our hands.
You have to go through several tank columns of generals if you want to touch a nuke. The army guards them about as fervently as possible and basically use that, and their relatively uncorrupted nature, to have influence on national politics. Hell, that's why the coup that put Musharref up in the first place was greeted happily.
FUCK! I just read this blurb on Comcast's home page when on my way to email.
Earlier today I had a bit of a debate about Pakistan with a college professor and we kind of agreed that Bhutto could bring big change to Pakistan. Man, that's really a tough pill to swallow.
Should I start shitting myself now? I've been shamefully distanced from world events so if anyone could outline the major ramifications of this assassination it'd be appreciated.
Bhutto's party is the largest in Pakistan, and they're pissed. Her sometime opponent, Sharif, is using the opportunity to call out President Musharraf and says that they're going to boycot elections. We all know how well boycotting of elections works out... see Iraq (I never understood the thought process there... "we're angry so we're not going to vote, so our enemies gain more power over us!").
If the People's Populist Party thinks that Musharraf is complicit in Bhutto's murder, and they boycot elections and rebel rather than try to oust him the democratic way, it will mean a completely destabilized Pakistan. Pakistan wasn't too stable to begin with, with lawless areas and many, many armed militia groups ready to make the place into the next Afghanistan or Iraq... except that there's nukes. Musharraf will have to try to maintain control while simultaniously protecting the nuclear arsenal; if just one nuke gets taken by one of the dozens of likely suspects, we could have a serious international crisis on our hands.
A boycott is a pretty smart idea in a rigged election. You add to its delegitmization by not participating. I wouldn't agree with the boycott if the votes actually meant something, but as it stands a high voter turnout would only benefit Musharraf.
Should I start shitting myself now? I've been shamefully distanced from world events so if anyone could outline the major ramifications of this assassination it'd be appreciated.
Bhutto's party is the largest in Pakistan, and they're pissed. Her sometime opponent, Sharif, is using the opportunity to call out President Musharraf and says that they're going to boycot elections. We all know how well boycotting of elections works out... see Iraq (I never understood the thought process there... "we're angry so we're not going to vote, so our enemies gain more power over us!").
If the People's Populist Party thinks that Musharraf is complicit in Bhutto's murder, and they boycot elections and rebel rather than try to oust him the democratic way, it will mean a completely destabilized Pakistan. Pakistan wasn't too stable to begin with, with lawless areas and many, many armed militia groups ready to make the place into the next Afghanistan or Iraq... except that there's nukes. Musharraf will have to try to maintain control while simultaniously protecting the nuclear arsenal; if just one nuke gets taken by one of the dozens of likely suspects, we could have a serious international crisis on our hands.
There's the fact that low voter turnout undermines an election (especially in parliamentary governments, which must achieve a coalition), there's the reason why northerners didn't participate in the Confederate election (kind of).
Bush has said 'I urge Musharef to allow democracy to continue' (paraphrased), which shows just how stupid he is. The election is only a few days away, and the PPP has just lost its leader. Given the way parliamentary parties work (very cohesive and leader-based), the party is probably in chaos an its supporters unsure of what new direction the party, so the election would be a total slaughter for the PPP if not postponed. It would be like if Obama (or Clinton, whatever) won the primary and selected, let's say, Gravel for VP, then, a few days before the general election, he was assassinated, resulting in Gravel being the dem candidate. It wouldn't end well.
So is this, or is this not, the beginning of the end for Pakistan, and many pakistanis within it?
I doubt it. It will likely have one of two results:
1. It causes massive outcry among the population followed by revolution and upheaval of the existing state.
2. The more likely scenario is that without a figurehead for the opposition, it will simply be more of the same and Pakistan will keep on going the same as it has over the last several years.
I haven't heard anything out of India yet, being Pakistan's most bitter international rival.
So is this, or is this not, the beginning of the end for Pakistan, and many pakistanis within it?
I doubt it. It will likely have one of two results:
1. It causes massive outcry among the population followed by revolution and upheaval of the existing state.
2. The more likely scenario is that without a figurehead for the opposition, it will simply be more of the same and Pakistan will keep on going the same as it has over the last several years.
I haven't heard anything out of India yet, being Pakistan's most bitter international rival.
This doesn't hurt 'the opposition'. Just the main secular opposition party. And now puts a lot less pressure on Musharraf because what little push there was on him from the West to democratize will now be nonexistent. If it was him that did it and it works out (nobody finds out, and he stays in power), then he just pulled one sweet move.
Why the hell do people think Musharaf is directly responsible?
What God-loving suicide bomber is going to blow himself up for Musharaf? This is the guy who bitch-slapped Allah himself by firing upon the Red Mosque.
I can see suspecting Musharaf for deliberately doing a lax job on security, and I wouldn't be surprised if he moves to capitalize on it for his own personal power but suggesting that he's behind this is about as stupid as suggesting that Bush is behind 9/11.
I was completely shocked when I heard the news this morning. Not because I didn't think it would happen, but because I met Bhutto when she gave a speech at my college last year. She struck me as a very dedicated and kind person, who truly cared about her homeland. When she told us of her intention to return to Pakistan this year, I thought "damn, why can't our leaders be that brave." She returned, knowing the risk, and died working to make her home a better place. It's hard to speak ill of that.
Now that I've gotten that bit of sentimentality out of the way, I'll get on with the cynical analysis of the situation. There are a lot of pissed Pakistanis right now, and whether Musharaf was directly responsible or not, he's going to take the brunt of the blame. Unfortunately, I doubt if any thing's going to come of it. Bhutto's party may work to make her a martyr, but even if they rally around that idea, they still have to come up with a new leader. That's going to take some time, and time is definitely on Musharaf's side. Unless the opposition party pulls a quick recovery act, they're going to be severely weakened.
Why the hell do people think Musharaf is directly responsible?
What God-loving suicide bomber is going to blow himself up for Musharaf? This is the guy who bitch-slapped Allah himself by firing upon the Red Mosque.
I can see suspecting Musharaf for deliberately doing a lax job on security, and I wouldn't be surprised if he moves to capitalize on it for his own personal power but suggesting that he's behind this is about as stupid as suggesting that Bush is behind 9/11.
It's nowhere near impossible for Musharraf to orchestrate this.
"Alright, Hassan, we have documents proving that you're in Al Qaeda (no, it doesn't matter if it's true or not), and you have two options. We can turn you over to the Americans, where you can languish in their blacksite prisons for years and be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, or you can strike a blow for Allah against the uppity woman who defies the Prophet's teachings. Your family would be well cared for. And also not shot."
I'm not saying he did, I'm not saying he didn't, but convincing a militant muslim to blow themselves up killing someone the fundamentalists hate anyways probably isn't that hard.
I personally think it's more likely that he simply denied the extra security that would be necessary for a highly visable political candidate would need in Pakistan and maybe dropped a few hints among the militants. Bhutto didn't have a shortage of people who wanted to kill her.
Why the hell do people think Musharaf is directly responsible?
What God-loving suicide bomber is going to blow himself up for Musharaf? This is the guy who bitch-slapped Allah himself by firing upon the Red Mosque.
I can see suspecting Musharaf for deliberately doing a lax job on security, and I wouldn't be surprised if he moves to capitalize on it for his own personal power but suggesting that he's behind this is about as stupid as suggesting that Bush is behind 9/11.
Musharraf doesn't need to personally meet with and convince a suicide bomber to blow himself up for the glory of serving Musharraf for a suicide bomber to blow himself up for Musharraf.
Why the hell do people think Musharaf is directly responsible?
What God-loving suicide bomber is going to blow himself up for Musharaf? This is the guy who bitch-slapped Allah himself by firing upon the Red Mosque.
I can see suspecting Musharaf for deliberately doing a lax job on security, and I wouldn't be surprised if he moves to capitalize on it for his own personal power but suggesting that he's behind this is about as stupid as suggesting that Bush is behind 9/11.
Musharraf doesn't need to personally meet with and convince a suicide bomber to blow himself up for the glory of serving Musharraf for a suicide bomber to blow himself up for Musharraf.
Indeed... in fact, his failure to provide any security to her (being a high risk target and leader of a political party) was pretty much the only "convincing" he needed to do. With her being at as much risk as she was, Musharraf knew that all he had to do was deny her the security details needed to keep her safe in order to make sure that someone would eventually pick her off.
That's why in a truly free society, major political candidates receive protection from the government (in the form of security escorts etc...) when they announce their candidacy. A truly free democracy is more interested in having a fair election and living participants than in the fact that a given candidate is in opposition to/support of the current leader. Sadly, Musharraf's regime fell far short of this standard.
And objecting to it just because it's a 'omg suicide bombing!' doesn't mean a whole lot. If you have enough power/money you can get someone to do whatever the fuck you want. If insurgents can manage to force people to be a suicide bombers, I'm sure a president wouldn't have too much trouble.
And objecting to it just because it's a 'omg suicide bombing!' doesn't mean a whole lot. If you have enough power/money you can get someone to do whatever the fuck you want. If insurgents can manage to force people to be a suicide bombers, I'm sure a president wouldn't have too much trouble.
And I may be talking out of my ass, but I suspect that a female politician isn't necessarily going to be lacking haters from the nutty, suicidey end of the spectrum. Musharraf could have just let it happen.
Why the hell do people think Musharaf is directly responsible?
What God-loving suicide bomber is going to blow himself up for Musharaf? This is the guy who bitch-slapped Allah himself by firing upon the Red Mosque.
I can see suspecting Musharaf for deliberately doing a lax job on security, and I wouldn't be surprised if he moves to capitalize on it for his own personal power but suggesting that he's behind this is about as stupid as suggesting that Bush is behind 9/11.
Musharraf doesn't need to personally meet with and convince a suicide bomber to blow himself up for the glory of serving Musharraf for a suicide bomber to blow himself up for Musharraf.
He wouldn't even have to do much to do with the attempt itself. I'm sure he could make it easy by doing very little like leaking security details the the right people.
Not saying he did but he would have to be involved very little with planning something like this.
There is a quantifiable difference between deliberately failing to provide security detail for someone you don't like and wouldn't mind dying, and orchestrating a suicide attack on said person.
And didn't she have security? She had an armored car and escorts. She only got shot because she stupidly stood up out of the sunroof.
I'm not a fan of Musharaf, he's a dictator, but I think the fact that multiple crazy Muslims are willing to blow themselves up to kill Bhutto along with hundreds of other bystanders is actually more troubling than a manipulative dictator who wants to stay in power.
I was completely shocked when I heard the news this morning. Not because I didn't think it would happen, but because I met Bhutto when she gave a speech at my college last year. She struck me as a very dedicated and kind person, who truly cared about her homeland. When she told us of her intention to return to Pakistan this year, I thought "damn, why can't our leaders be that brave." She returned, knowing the risk, and died working to make her home a better place. It's hard to speak ill of that.
Now that I've gotten that bit of sentimentality out of the way, I'll get on with the cynical analysis of the situation. There are a lot of pissed Pakistanis right now, and whether Musharaf was directly responsible or not, he's going to take the brunt of the blame. Unfortunately, I doubt if any thing's going to come of it. Bhutto's party may work to make her a martyr, but even if they rally around that idea, they still have to come up with a new leader. That's going to take some time, and time is definitely on Musharaf's side. Unless the opposition party pulls a quick recovery act, they're going to be severely weakened.
Am I too cynical to think that Bhutto in power wouldn't have ultimately brought about anything remarkably different, and that politicians are good at convincing people they truly care because if they couldn't they wouldn't be politicians?
Sam on
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I was completely shocked when I heard the news this morning. Not because I didn't think it would happen, but because I met Bhutto when she gave a speech at my college last year. She struck me as a very dedicated and kind person, who truly cared about her homeland. When she told us of her intention to return to Pakistan this year, I thought "damn, why can't our leaders be that brave." She returned, knowing the risk, and died working to make her home a better place. It's hard to speak ill of that.
Now that I've gotten that bit of sentimentality out of the way, I'll get on with the cynical analysis of the situation. There are a lot of pissed Pakistanis right now, and whether Musharaf was directly responsible or not, he's going to take the brunt of the blame. Unfortunately, I doubt if any thing's going to come of it. Bhutto's party may work to make her a martyr, but even if they rally around that idea, they still have to come up with a new leader. That's going to take some time, and time is definitely on Musharaf's side. Unless the opposition party pulls a quick recovery act, they're going to be severely weakened.
Am I too cynical to think that Bhutto in power wouldn't have ultimately brought about anything remarkably different, and that politicians are good at convincing people they truly care because if they couldn't they wouldn't be politicians?
No, not really. But I think she may have left Pakistan a better place than she found it, given time. Given what I know about her, she strikes me as the closest thing that nation had to a true Progressive. I think she would've done good things for the country's social culture (which, as it stands, sucks).
Can't say I can add much more than what's been said here, except maybe even on NPR they were mainly reporting that Islamic fundamentalists from Afghanistan were the most likely culprits, with the occasional mention of the fact that Musharaf didn't bother to provide any kind of security detail and isn't being super about postponing the elections.
Oh, another thing -- Musharaf has already refused a foreign investigation into the bombing, which isn't unprecedented for him. Read into that what you will.
I also did see some people saying Musharaf would use this as an excuse to mess with the elections. Not true, he swears he'll hold elections, it's Bhutto's party that claims there is a necessary mourning period which should be observed and elections postponed. Since Musharaf has said he will hold them, they are swearing a boycott.
I was completely shocked when I heard the news this morning. Not because I didn't think it would happen, but because I met Bhutto when she gave a speech at my college last year. She struck me as a very dedicated and kind person, who truly cared about her homeland. When she told us of her intention to return to Pakistan this year, I thought "damn, why can't our leaders be that brave." She returned, knowing the risk, and died working to make her home a better place. It's hard to speak ill of that.
Now that I've gotten that bit of sentimentality out of the way, I'll get on with the cynical analysis of the situation. There are a lot of pissed Pakistanis right now, and whether Musharaf was directly responsible or not, he's going to take the brunt of the blame. Unfortunately, I doubt if any thing's going to come of it. Bhutto's party may work to make her a martyr, but even if they rally around that idea, they still have to come up with a new leader. That's going to take some time, and time is definitely on Musharaf's side. Unless the opposition party pulls a quick recovery act, they're going to be severely weakened.
Am I too cynical to think that Bhutto in power wouldn't have ultimately brought about anything remarkably different, and that politicians are good at convincing people they truly care because if they couldn't they wouldn't be politicians?
No, not really. But I think she may have left Pakistan a better place than she found it, given time. Given what I know about her, she strikes me as the closest thing that nation had to a true Progressive. I think she would've done good things for the country's social culture (which, as it stands, sucks).
There isn't much anyone can do to change prudish/medieval social attitudes though. It's part of why people wanted to create the state to begin with.
Sam on
0
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
I have no idea where the idea that these elections would be any way fair came from. What, in Musharraf's conduct since he took power indicated to you that he's willing to give it up, in any fashion? Was it his hands-off approach with the judiciary, or freedom he gave to his opposition?
don't mean to derail, but i find it odd that for a country that has trouble keeping its shit together, its capital Islamabad looks much nicer than any major Indian city.
I have no idea where the idea that these elections would be any way fair came from. What, in Musharraf's conduct since he took power indicated to you that he's willing to give it up, in any fashion? Was it his hands-off approach with the judiciary, or freedom he gave to his opposition?
Well, there are organizations that tend to show up in situations like this to monitor elections, like International IDEA and the U.N. If Musharraf wants to maintain at least a facade of legitimacy, he'll have election monitors in his country, and then try to figure out how to rig the election from there. He might be just popular enough to win legitimately, especially if the other factions boycot.
I've long been saying with good reason, that Pakistani's Inter Service Intelligence controls and funds al Qaeda, and gives safe harbor to al Qaeda and Taliban in the Warzaristan province(possible even weapons and funding from US money earmarked to fight al Qaeda)
The media widely reported that the head of ISI intelligence General Mahmoud Ahmed and Omar Saeed(top MI6/ISI operative whom Sharif helped free for Osama bin Laden in 1999) send Mohammed Atta $100,000 for the 9/11 operation. Other top ISI officials have been proven to have been in on the plot
Well now, not only is the ISI funding the Taliban resurgence and giving them free reign...
Clearly, the goal is the destabilization of Pakistan to somehow warp a moderate public into accepting a hardcore Islamic extremist takeover...which sadly, may be possible given how unpopular Musharaf is.
You have Israel arming and funding India, the US funding Pakistan...clearly it's one big mess.
But you cant tell me the warmongers wouldnt jizz their pants over being able to say that "al Qaeda" controls a nuclear country.
I think the REASON the US has not gone into Warzaristan to take out Osama, Zawahiri and al Qaeda once and for all is because that would get rid of the main reason for the massive millitary increase and war on terror post 9/11. Thatd be bad for business, just ask Guiliani
While Democrats(cept Hillary) may be against invading Iran, I suspect Democrats may be championing the idea of US millitary operations in Pakistan
Well don't people realize al Qaeda is IN Pakistan, given free reign? Musharaf literally told Osama if he behaves, he's free to roam about. Osama, Zawahiri and al Qaeda with the Taliban have been not just allowed, but funded and helped to have their own damn nation(Warzaristan province) within Pakistan.
Some of that money sadly has come from the 10.59 billion Bush has given Pakistan since 9/11
Were told the US has to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq, and attack Iran...when al Qaeda's heart, soul and monster factory is in Pakistan. Not Syria, not Iran, not Iraq.
So why in the world does Bush talk endlessly about getting the terrorists, when he ignores where the infection is coming from?
If I was Musharaf I would have arranged for this to happen in a way that implicated Sharif, since his party has ties to Islamists. Knock both of my opponents out.
Well Sharif was buddy buddy with Osama, and in 1999 helped scheme a plot with the ISI to hijack an Indian Airliner, fly it to Kandahar where Osama and ISI officials were waiting, all to arrange the release of Omar Saeed(Daniel Pearl's killer, top 9/11 operative)
Musharaf's top cop Brig. Ejaz Shah was Osama's personal handler, and Omar Saeed's handler, and many believe he was the one that stood down Bhutto's security detail.
So false flagging this event to point toward opponents is not neccesary, as Sharif is in bed with the terrorists.
Clearly, the goal is the destabilization of Pakistan to somehow warp a moderate public into accepting a hardcore Islamic extremist takeover...which sadly, may be possible given how unpopular Musharaf is.
Except that isn't clear at all. The average individual is most likely going to assume that it was, in fact, Islamic extremists that were responsible for Bhutto's assassination; how would that do anything except strengthen Musharaf's position? Cult of personality tends to mean that scared people look to their leaders for guidance.
Clearly, the goal is the destabilization of Pakistan to somehow warp a moderate public into accepting a hardcore Islamic extremist takeover...which sadly, may be possible given how unpopular Musharaf is.
Except that isn't clear at all. The average individual is most likely going to assume that it was, in fact, Islamic extremists that were responsible for Bhutto's assassination; how would that do anything except strengthen Musharaf's position? Cult of personality tends to mean that scared people look to their leaders for guidance.
The average Pakistani has no love for either Musharaff nor the extremists. It was clear Bhutto was a shoein for the elections, much like Bobby Kennedy in 1968. And while the public wouldnt accept al Qaeda taking over, much like the Bosniaks/Kosovars/Albanians didnt accept it, amidst utter chaos...like people scrambling to get a homerun baseball in the stands...a Somalia like instance of Islamic terrorist types gaining control is always possible.
...Especially, when those behind al Qaeda are already in elements of the government.
I mean it's not like he has anything to gain by taking out his chief rival, using the event as a Reichstag fire to seize power, suspend elections, and impose martia........oh.
Well there's a difference between seizing upon and causing a traumatic event...that said I don't believe Musharaf or his camp was behind this event tho, as this will mean possible chaos. The same people who did this event also have it out for Pervez.
But its not like a government leader(Putin) has ever staged an attack(Sept 1999 Russian apartment blasts)
to launch a war, seize power and take away civil liberties.
Clearly, the goal is the destabilization of Pakistan to somehow warp a moderate public into accepting a hardcore Islamic extremist takeover...which sadly, may be possible given how unpopular Musharaf is.
Clearly it's this and not an authoritarian, secular military junta that would arise in Mushareff's collapse.
I think the REASON the US has not gone into Warzaristan to take out Osama, Zawahiri and al Qaeda once and for all is because that would get rid of the main reason for the massive millitary increase and war on terror post 9/11. Thatd be bad for business, just ask Guiliani
Because we're doing so very well at taking out the terrorists in Afghanistan. I guess they're lucky we won't invade Pakistan and spread our glorious freedoms there just as effectively.
Just an update, but apparently Bhutto killed herself. No bullet ever hit her and the explosion didn't do shit. As she was ducking from the explosion and the bullets she just hit her own head on the car's roof so hard that she fractured her own skull and pretty much died. No one in her car was even hurt.
I hope we learn a valuable lesson from this today.
Just an update, but apparently Bhutto killed herself. No bullet ever hit her and the explosion didn't do shit. As she was ducking from the explosion and the bullets she just hit her own head on the car's roof so hard that she fractured her own skull and pretty much died. No one in her car was even hurt.
I hope we learn a valuable lesson from this today.
Just an update, but apparently Bhutto killed herself. No bullet ever hit her and the explosion didn't do shit. As she was ducking from the explosion and the bullets she just hit her own head on the car's roof so hard that she fractured her own skull and pretty much died. No one in her car was even hurt.
I hope we learn a valuable lesson from this today.
Just an update, but apparently Bhutto killed herself. No bullet ever hit her and the explosion didn't do shit. As she was ducking from the explosion and the bullets she just hit her own head on the car's roof so hard that she fractured her own skull and pretty much died. No one in her car was even hurt.
I hope we learn a valuable lesson from this today.
Er... link? Most of the news sites I've checked still aren't certain on what killed her.
Posts
You're in good company.
Should I start shitting myself now? I've been shamefully distanced from world events so if anyone could outline the major ramifications of this assassination it'd be appreciated.
She was largely the face of the opposition to Musharref and likely to be either PM or leader of a large block of parliament after next month's sham election. Now that mantle will fall on Sharif, who wasn't quite as eloquent/liked/powerful. So, Musharef is basically going to have an easier time being a despot now.
Bhutto's party is the largest in Pakistan, and they're pissed. Her sometime opponent, Sharif, is using the opportunity to call out President Musharraf and says that they're going to boycot elections. We all know how well boycotting of elections works out... see Iraq (I never understood the thought process there... "we're angry so we're not going to vote, so our enemies gain more power over us!").
If the People's Populist Party thinks that Musharraf is complicit in Bhutto's murder, and they boycot elections and rebel rather than try to oust him the democratic way, it will mean a completely destabilized Pakistan. Pakistan wasn't too stable to begin with, with lawless areas and many, many armed militia groups ready to make the place into the next Afghanistan or Iraq... except that there's nukes. Musharraf will have to try to maintain control while simultaniously protecting the nuclear arsenal; if just one nuke gets taken by one of the dozens of likely suspects, we could have a serious international crisis on our hands.
Earlier today I had a bit of a debate about Pakistan with a college professor and we kind of agreed that Bhutto could bring big change to Pakistan. Man, that's really a tough pill to swallow.
A boycott is a pretty smart idea in a rigged election. You add to its delegitmization by not participating. I wouldn't agree with the boycott if the votes actually meant something, but as it stands a high voter turnout would only benefit Musharraf.
There's the fact that low voter turnout undermines an election (especially in parliamentary governments, which must achieve a coalition), there's the reason why northerners didn't participate in the Confederate election (kind of).
Bush has said 'I urge Musharef to allow democracy to continue' (paraphrased), which shows just how stupid he is. The election is only a few days away, and the PPP has just lost its leader. Given the way parliamentary parties work (very cohesive and leader-based), the party is probably in chaos an its supporters unsure of what new direction the party, so the election would be a total slaughter for the PPP if not postponed. It would be like if Obama (or Clinton, whatever) won the primary and selected, let's say, Gravel for VP, then, a few days before the general election, he was assassinated, resulting in Gravel being the dem candidate. It wouldn't end well.
Everyone is pissed about the elephant in the room, and Bush has met great success by maintaining an unchanging position of "What Elephant?"
I doubt it. It will likely have one of two results:
1. It causes massive outcry among the population followed by revolution and upheaval of the existing state.
2. The more likely scenario is that without a figurehead for the opposition, it will simply be more of the same and Pakistan will keep on going the same as it has over the last several years.
I haven't heard anything out of India yet, being Pakistan's most bitter international rival.
This doesn't hurt 'the opposition'. Just the main secular opposition party. And now puts a lot less pressure on Musharraf because what little push there was on him from the West to democratize will now be nonexistent. If it was him that did it and it works out (nobody finds out, and he stays in power), then he just pulled one sweet move.
What God-loving suicide bomber is going to blow himself up for Musharaf? This is the guy who bitch-slapped Allah himself by firing upon the Red Mosque.
I can see suspecting Musharaf for deliberately doing a lax job on security, and I wouldn't be surprised if he moves to capitalize on it for his own personal power but suggesting that he's behind this is about as stupid as suggesting that Bush is behind 9/11.
Now that I've gotten that bit of sentimentality out of the way, I'll get on with the cynical analysis of the situation. There are a lot of pissed Pakistanis right now, and whether Musharaf was directly responsible or not, he's going to take the brunt of the blame. Unfortunately, I doubt if any thing's going to come of it. Bhutto's party may work to make her a martyr, but even if they rally around that idea, they still have to come up with a new leader. That's going to take some time, and time is definitely on Musharaf's side. Unless the opposition party pulls a quick recovery act, they're going to be severely weakened.
Steam | Twitter
It's nowhere near impossible for Musharraf to orchestrate this.
"Alright, Hassan, we have documents proving that you're in Al Qaeda (no, it doesn't matter if it's true or not), and you have two options. We can turn you over to the Americans, where you can languish in their blacksite prisons for years and be subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, or you can strike a blow for Allah against the uppity woman who defies the Prophet's teachings. Your family would be well cared for. And also not shot."
I'm not saying he did, I'm not saying he didn't, but convincing a militant muslim to blow themselves up killing someone the fundamentalists hate anyways probably isn't that hard.
I personally think it's more likely that he simply denied the extra security that would be necessary for a highly visable political candidate would need in Pakistan and maybe dropped a few hints among the militants. Bhutto didn't have a shortage of people who wanted to kill her.
Musharraf doesn't need to personally meet with and convince a suicide bomber to blow himself up for the glory of serving Musharraf for a suicide bomber to blow himself up for Musharraf.
Indeed... in fact, his failure to provide any security to her (being a high risk target and leader of a political party) was pretty much the only "convincing" he needed to do. With her being at as much risk as she was, Musharraf knew that all he had to do was deny her the security details needed to keep her safe in order to make sure that someone would eventually pick her off.
That's why in a truly free society, major political candidates receive protection from the government (in the form of security escorts etc...) when they announce their candidacy. A truly free democracy is more interested in having a fair election and living participants than in the fact that a given candidate is in opposition to/support of the current leader. Sadly, Musharraf's regime fell far short of this standard.
And I may be talking out of my ass, but I suspect that a female politician isn't necessarily going to be lacking haters from the nutty, suicidey end of the spectrum. Musharraf could have just let it happen.
He wouldn't even have to do much to do with the attempt itself. I'm sure he could make it easy by doing very little like leaking security details the the right people.
Not saying he did but he would have to be involved very little with planning something like this.
And didn't she have security? She had an armored car and escorts. She only got shot because she stupidly stood up out of the sunroof.
I'm not a fan of Musharaf, he's a dictator, but I think the fact that multiple crazy Muslims are willing to blow themselves up to kill Bhutto along with hundreds of other bystanders is actually more troubling than a manipulative dictator who wants to stay in power.
Am I too cynical to think that Bhutto in power wouldn't have ultimately brought about anything remarkably different, and that politicians are good at convincing people they truly care because if they couldn't they wouldn't be politicians?
Can't say I can add much more than what's been said here, except maybe even on NPR they were mainly reporting that Islamic fundamentalists from Afghanistan were the most likely culprits, with the occasional mention of the fact that Musharaf didn't bother to provide any kind of security detail and isn't being super about postponing the elections.
Oh, another thing -- Musharaf has already refused a foreign investigation into the bombing, which isn't unprecedented for him. Read into that what you will.
I also did see some people saying Musharaf would use this as an excuse to mess with the elections. Not true, he swears he'll hold elections, it's Bhutto's party that claims there is a necessary mourning period which should be observed and elections postponed. Since Musharaf has said he will hold them, they are swearing a boycott.
There isn't much anyone can do to change prudish/medieval social attitudes though. It's part of why people wanted to create the state to begin with.
Of course, there's also the chance that her death could serve as the catalyst for change. There's really no telling at this point.
Well, there are organizations that tend to show up in situations like this to monitor elections, like International IDEA and the U.N. If Musharraf wants to maintain at least a facade of legitimacy, he'll have election monitors in his country, and then try to figure out how to rig the election from there. He might be just popular enough to win legitimately, especially if the other factions boycot.
The media widely reported that the head of ISI intelligence General Mahmoud Ahmed and Omar Saeed(top MI6/ISI operative whom Sharif helped free for Osama bin Laden in 1999) send Mohammed Atta $100,000 for the 9/11 operation. Other top ISI officials have been proven to have been in on the plot
Well now, not only is the ISI funding the Taliban resurgence and giving them free reign...
turns out the ISI may have been behind this assassination of Bhutto
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/27/AR2007122702261.html
http://www.newsweek.com/id/82153/page/2
Clearly, the goal is the destabilization of Pakistan to somehow warp a moderate public into accepting a hardcore Islamic extremist takeover...which sadly, may be possible given how unpopular Musharaf is.
You have Israel arming and funding India, the US funding Pakistan...clearly it's one big mess.
But you cant tell me the warmongers wouldnt jizz their pants over being able to say that "al Qaeda" controls a nuclear country.
I think the REASON the US has not gone into Warzaristan to take out Osama, Zawahiri and al Qaeda once and for all is because that would get rid of the main reason for the massive millitary increase and war on terror post 9/11. Thatd be bad for business, just ask Guiliani
While Democrats(cept Hillary) may be against invading Iran, I suspect Democrats may be championing the idea of US millitary operations in Pakistan
NeoRamen: panoramic cyberpunk gamer comic
Well don't people realize al Qaeda is IN Pakistan, given free reign? Musharaf literally told Osama if he behaves, he's free to roam about. Osama, Zawahiri and al Qaeda with the Taliban have been not just allowed, but funded and helped to have their own damn nation(Warzaristan province) within Pakistan.
Some of that money sadly has come from the 10.59 billion Bush has given Pakistan since 9/11
Were told the US has to stay in Afghanistan and Iraq, and attack Iran...when al Qaeda's heart, soul and monster factory is in Pakistan. Not Syria, not Iran, not Iraq.
So why in the world does Bush talk endlessly about getting the terrorists, when he ignores where the infection is coming from?
Well Sharif was buddy buddy with Osama, and in 1999 helped scheme a plot with the ISI to hijack an Indian Airliner, fly it to Kandahar where Osama and ISI officials were waiting, all to arrange the release of Omar Saeed(Daniel Pearl's killer, top 9/11 operative)
Musharaf's top cop Brig. Ejaz Shah was Osama's personal handler, and Omar Saeed's handler, and many believe he was the one that stood down Bhutto's security detail.
So false flagging this event to point toward opponents is not neccesary, as Sharif is in bed with the terrorists.
NeoRamen: panoramic cyberpunk gamer comic
Except that isn't clear at all. The average individual is most likely going to assume that it was, in fact, Islamic extremists that were responsible for Bhutto's assassination; how would that do anything except strengthen Musharaf's position? Cult of personality tends to mean that scared people look to their leaders for guidance.
The average Pakistani has no love for either Musharaff nor the extremists. It was clear Bhutto was a shoein for the elections, much like Bobby Kennedy in 1968. And while the public wouldnt accept al Qaeda taking over, much like the Bosniaks/Kosovars/Albanians didnt accept it, amidst utter chaos...like people scrambling to get a homerun baseball in the stands...a Somalia like instance of Islamic terrorist types gaining control is always possible.
...Especially, when those behind al Qaeda are already in elements of the government.
Well there's a difference between seizing upon and causing a traumatic event...that said I don't believe Musharaf or his camp was behind this event tho, as this will mean possible chaos. The same people who did this event also have it out for Pervez.
But its not like a government leader(Putin) has ever staged an attack(Sept 1999 Russian apartment blasts)
to launch a war, seize power and take away civil liberties.
NeoRamen: panoramic cyberpunk gamer comic
Clearly it's this and not an authoritarian, secular military junta that would arise in Mushareff's collapse.
Because we're doing so very well at taking out the terrorists in Afghanistan. I guess they're lucky we won't invade Pakistan and spread our glorious freedoms there just as effectively.
I hope we learn a valuable lesson from this today.
Death by flinching... fucked up way to die.
Er... link? Most of the news sites I've checked still aren't certain on what killed her.