Benazir Bhutto assassinated
Snip from a post by Momekh on the Lahore metblog:
On the evening of 27th December 2007, Ms Benazir Bhutto died due to injuries sustained in a suicide bomb attack on her life. I feel like repeating this to actually believe it. I feel that almost everything within the Pakistani political makeup will change. There is already incident reports of people ransacking offices of political officials, of protestors burning vehicles and the subsequent sense of fear that things will turn for the worse. I, unfortunately, also feel that the same unjust rule, the same all-consuming lust for power, the same indifference that seems to be root cause of everything evil and the same 'wheeling and dealing' associated with the politicians of today will continue unabated.A related post there addresses concerns over chaos; the Islamabad and Karachi metblogs are also covering the news.This death, this tragic, tragic incident will provide more intrigue and more 'play' to what is already happening in the echelons of power in this country. When Liaquat Ali Khan was murdered, General Ayub writes in his autobiography, most of the politicians of the time were immediately looking for ways to fully exploit the vacuum obviously created by a deceased Prime Minister. I do not see why this tragedy will be any different. And that in itself, is a bigger tragedy.
How did WWI start again?
Looks like the neocons got their wish.
It always seems like someone sets out to kill any politician who might actually set some positive change into effect. I guess the keyword is "change." People are so afraid of anything outside of their dark, twisted, violence-riddled little lives they'll take steep measures to ensure nothing alters it, unable to grasp the concept that maybe, just maybe, things could be better.
*shakes head*
As soon as she --said-- she was going to return to Pakistan I knew she was going cause trouble. Now she's paid the price for trying to elevate her status. Let's be honest, her message (democracy for all, and an H-bomb for every country) might have been "good" but she knew what she was in for. She should have just been happy blogging.
MSNBC’s Jack Jacob’s is saying that India will start massing troops on the border. The possibility of a nuclear exchange between the two is not out of the question in my mind.
Oh, things are about to change that is for sure Talia. Gold and silver are WAY up. Oil will no doubt follow. You will look fondly back on these days of cheap $3 a gallon gas. You will never see them again.
Looks like Bush will get his WWIII. How fortunate for him.
This is a terrible blow to the evolution of Pakistan.
Some people think it was The Prime Minister Musharraf, some people think it was the opposition party of Nawaz Sharif, and of course some will suspect "Al-Qieda"
But it doesn't matter. It's an effing shame. Period.
The elections are Jan 8th...and I think they will not be held.
Can't Musharraf spend a little bit of the $4 Billion we gave him on security for such events???????????
Nope, it would just be easier to get rid of the only serious candidate.
Call it speculation, but all signs point to the Government.
We'll see.
Ys Nn, th sky s fllng nd t's ll Bshs flt.
Ths jst gs t shw th knd f brbrnsm w r dlng wth vr thr. ftr w fnsh clnng p rq, w nd t jst plw thrgh th rst f tht prt f th wrld nd prfrm nthr thcl cln p. Ths ppl wnt t d fr thr cs? m sr th S Mrns wll b gld t hlp!
I'm torn on this event. While I certainly do not celebrate her assassination, I don't know as she was the savior of Pakistan as she was being portrayed. This is a woman who Interpol had an arrest warrant for and who's government was dismissed TWICE for corruption.
On the opposite end though, her death only serves to further disrupt and destabilize the region. For those who believe that the Pakistani government was behind this? Bear in mind that she never could've returned to Pakistan, without facing immediate arrest, had it not been for the government granting her amnesty.
No matter how you look at it though, this is NOT a good day.
"This just goes to show the kind of barbarianism we are dealing with over there."
So, when Americans were assassinating progressive political leaders here in the 60s, we had a 'barbaric' society?
Jeff: She should have just been happy blogging.
I sort of disagree. She was apparently standing up for her beliefs and trying to make a positive difference. Sometimes in order to do good you have to put your personal safety and happiness at risk.
Rossifumi: But it doesn't matter. It's an effing shame. Period.
Agreed.
Machine: This just goes to show the kind of barbarianism we are dealing with over there. After we finish cleaning up Iraq, we need to just plow through the rest of that part of the world and preform another ethical clean up. These people want to die for there cause? I am sure the US Marines will be glad to help!
That doesn't sound that ethical to me. And I doubt that the Marines are quite as bloodthirsty as you imply.
"After we finish cleaning up Iraq, we need to just plow through the rest of that part of the world and preform another ethical clean up. These people want to die for there cause? I am sure the US Marines will be glad to help!"
So ignorant I don't even know where to start.
"THESE PEOPLE" are hundreds of different kinds of peoples/viewpoints/factions/organizations. To bunch them together as "people we have to ethnically clean up" makes you an Adolf Hitler-like animal. And if you are infact part of the Marines, then looks like we really are screwed.
PEOPLE! Look at this vid just posted on CNN
http://www.time.com/time/video/?bcpid=1214055407&bclid=1232409122&bctid=1305011684
LOOK AT THE AMOUNT OF SECURITY posted at Bhutto's home "4,000 troops" to guard a woman from marching.
Why was this excess in security guards not at her rally???
"Why was this excess in security guards not at her rally???"
The real question to ask is why the vests on the EMTs were all in English.
BTW, al-qaeda claims responsibility.
http://www.adnkronos.com/AKI/English/Security/?id=1.0.1710322437
The real question to ask is why the vests on the EMTs were all in English.
Maybe, just maybe, because English is one of the two official languages of Pakistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Pakistan#English_.28official_language.29
Noen@12:
English is the official first language of Pakistan, with Urdu being the commonly spoken language.
Depressing...
Machine- I think you're just showing the general ignorance and lack of curiosity that some here seem to have about the rest of the world. You also seem to be advocating an openly imperialist policy, which has largely gotten us where we are today. I'd suspect that most of "those people" would like what we have- which is choice, a bit of self-determination, and the ability to live in peace and not have to worry about if there kids will get blown to bits if they send them to school or down the street to do some shopping for the family, or whatever. I doubt the vast majority of Pakistanis, Iranians, Iraqis, Saudis, Egyptians, Kosovars, Bosnians, etc, want to live in violent countries under repressive regimes. Would you? The Muslim community is no monolith, as our state department seems to think. It's pretty diverse. It's like saying that all Christian countries (or Christian majority countries) are alike. How much like Britain, or Germany, or France are we? I really wish some people have some iota of imagination...
I doubt that she was as great as everyone made her out to be, seems a bit cult of personalitish (?) to me. But- she did in part represent opposition to the military rule. How can that be a bad thing? Things are just getting worse by the second around the world and we just seem to be stumbling around making it worse...
Mindysan
Yes Simon Greenwood, but it's unusual for the vests to be in English only. I think it's odd, that's all. I also am not surprised that al-qaeda has taken responsibility. They would even if they had nothing to do with it.
us forces also set to vastly expand their presence in pakistan.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/earlywarning/2007/12/musharrafs_woes_have_opened_a.html?nav=rss_blog
greeeeeeeat...
Spherical time said, "She was apparently standing up for her beliefs and trying to make a positive difference"
That is probably the case: No good deed goes unpunished. But, she knew what she was in store for. And I think that Pakistan is worse off because of her return. She was trying to make a difference, but she also wanted the power. Like moths to a flame, the power of fame, the people she would tame, more of the same, now isn't that a shame?
R.I.P. :o(
She did NOT die from the suicide bombing attack; she died from gunshot wounds, possibly (as mentioned in the NYT) from sniper shots from a nearby building. It was clearly Musharraf's doing. Both Bhutto's confidantes and Nawaz Sharif's people agree with this; it was NOT "suicide bombers" or "extremists" that killed Bhutto. This was a political hit.
Out of pure despair - I have no opinion on Ms Bhutto - but sometimes out of pure despair I wish I could throw an impenetrable force field around the whole of the Middle East, so no one could get out or in and let them solve their problems amongst themselves in whatever way they chose.
They could solve their problems with this eye for an eye stuff for as long as they wanted and the western world cut off from oil would grow up too.
Bhutto would have been a force for positive change in Pakistan. Clearly, she represented everything that was dangerous to those who would keep Pakistan un-democratic, irrationally religious,class oriented,tribal, and of course, patriarchal. This is a sad and very dangerous day. To the person who wants to send in the marines...? ! Are you really a Boing Boing reader?
Cpck Fr and many others seem to think that Pakistan would be better off under Democratic rule. It's nice to think this is so (and I do too). But, what if some societies are really better off with dictators? What if the amount of "chaos" is a society is inversly related to democracy? I can think of several examples where democracy did not serve the long-term needs of society, specifically the culture that originated it. I think we can project our idea of what is right and just on other cultures without fully realizing how robotic that response is.
"I wish I could throw an impenetrable force field around the whole of the Middle East, so no one could get out or in and let them solve their problems amongst themselves in whatever way they chose."
That will only happen when oil is no longer the engine that drives every economy on the planet.
How sad.
Noen, English is the common language out of a couple of dozen. The same applies in India: many people have to speak three or four languages to get by in the day and often the only common written language they have is English. I'm not familiar with standards in the police and armed forces but in part it's an artifact of the British Empire, which still lies at the roots of the government's systems even 60 years after partition.
Just a quick note on the actual attack:
more recent news sources are saying that Bhutto was actually shot twice before the bomb went off. She was clearly the primary target, and the attacker(s) didn't want the random destruction of a suicide bomb. They made sure they killed her, and then set off the bomb.
Something about that makes it seem more calculated than "just" a suicide bomb.
http://www.forbes.com/markets/2007/12/27/pakistan-bhutto-death-markets-emerge-cx_rd_1227markets10.html
I think Jeff makes an interesting point, one I'm not sure how I feel about. Those are the delicious ones.
Personally, I'm all for isolationism. As far as I can tell, 99% of the world are crazy, stupid and/or really mad, and they're going to go on starving themselves into submission, killing, bombing, or starting corrupt governments.
I just don't care, and I think that's the moral high ground. Fix yourself, fix your family, fix your neighborhood, village, town or small city, but leave the rest of the world to its own devices. Nobody likes a teacher's pet.
Ok Simon, I believe you.
Back when Bhutto first returned to Pakistan, I wondered why she came back. Back then, I figured we'd never know... she could have come back hoping to be a martyr, to accumulate power or to be a thorn in Musharaf's side. Now she's dead and I guess I was right back then... we'll never know. But we are entitled to our suspicions.
Bhutto was a woman of many contradictions. Well, actually, she wasn't. She was very much sadly typical of Pakistani politicians. Nepotic, prone to cronyism, she was booted out of government for corruption. This wasn't as extreme as her successor, who got exiled after a military coup due to corruption, but it was still pretty bad. But, as I said, this was typical. Pakistan has an inordinate number of prime ministers for so young a democracy.
As for who was responsible, hah... you're looking at a veritable game of Clue here. Sharif hated Bhutto. Musharaf also wasn't exactly hot on Bhutto, relations having taken a sharp downturn after the suspension of the constitution; an assassination of a popular politician would make a great excuse for the declaration of another state of emergency. The military also disliked Bhutto ecause she didn't like nukes. To the Taliban and al Qaeda, Bhutto was anathaema and her assassination as we all know would be great for sowing chaos in the region, which is what both these rabble rousers want so either one could have been responsible too. So there are a great many parties who benefit from the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
Who are the losers? The ordinary schmoes of the world. Especially the ordinary schmoes who live in Pakistan and environs. Regardless of who was responsible, we know that tensions are going to be raised, planted operatives are going to be instigating riots and there may be another state of emergency in Pakistan... maybe martial law even. Doesn't sound to me like the world's a safer place for folks at large.
Right now, the talking point going around is that "The People of Pakistan must now decide what kind of country they want... there is very little that the West can do." This is fundamentally untrue... the People of Pakistan will by and large be able to do squat about what kind of country they want. They are caught up something beyond their control and now, as has been happening too often, all they can do is stand back and watch where the dice fall and try to rebuild from there. And the punchline is that there isn't anything that the world at large can do either because they have so squandered their diplomatic resources over the past 7 years.
The day Benazir Bhutto died will be marked at a watershed moment in the history of South Asia, if not the world at large. Many cynics, myself included, harboured strong suspicions as to Bhutto's motives when she returned to Pakistan; we thought she wanted to seal her legacy, get her name writ large in the history books for surely 2007 was a momentous year in the history of Pakistan.
And now, she has indeed secured her place in that history. I hope she is happy now, wherever she is.
It's worth remembering that war is highly unlikely in any case even after the assassination of a leader.
The deaths of Lincoln, Kennedy, Mackenzie and even Indira Ghandi are evidence of this.
Moreover, even in WW 1 the assassination did not lead directly to war. There was a month of very bad diplomacy, by people who believed that it had been too long since a good war had happened and were eager to try out all their toys.
There is no strong geopolitical incentive for anyone to get involved in Pakistan right now. Only neighboring countries to arm their borders to keep the violence from spreading.
"It is for kings to eat the bread of sorrow" - Maya proverb.
I knew she was a dead woman the minute she got off the plane in Pakistan.
The sad thing is it wouldn't surprise me to see one of her children to grow up, enter politics and suffer the same fate as her and her father before her. Pakistan has become a witch's brew - no one really knows just what's in the pot and what will come of it.
@CERONOMUS: I am in the same boat. The assassination and murder of any human being is a tragedy.
After reading up today on Bhutto's history, I am still unclear as to what her true purpose was, especially amid all the corruption charges and frequent changes in policy. On the other side of the coin, I can't decide on Musharraf either; one minute he's on the Daily Show promoting his new book, the next he's declaring martial law on his country. I'm not, in any respect, informed enough to develop any sort of opinion, nor would I think it my place to do so.
At the risk of sounding portentous, all I know is that when I turned on the TV this morning and heard this as the first news of the day, I felt a rather unusual thump in my chest as if to say "This is going to effect me somehow."
#27 (TWG) said, "Personally, I'm all for isolationism. As far as I can tell, 99% of the world are crazy"
The human world has developed more scientific Order than this planet has ever known. So, it kinda makes sense that the other side of the coin would spin around from time to time: Chaos-Order-Chaos-Order... If one can expect miracles I guess one should also expect tragedy. We just can't get away from this crazy duality.
It's too bad we CAN"T cut ourselves off from the Middle East. The countries there have some severe social problems that they need to work out. But the world doesn't work by isolation anymore. The best way we can insulate ourselves is to find some way of easing our dependance on the oil we buy from them. IMHO, this should be the major priority of American society right now.
The only thing that must not be tolerated is intolerance.
Intolerance is the enemy of freedom.
Tolerance and acknowledgment of other's right to exist and right to believe is a fundamental societal requirement. Failure to do this creates a dangerous, barbaric, savage liability.
We hoped that regardless of politics, history, scandal or controversy Ms. Bhutto would have the same fundamental right to exist that all your sons and daughters deserve.
The rest of the world see's you as an intolerant nation, based on your actions and your events that have occurred.
The acceptance of intolerance has created monsters and demons that spilled out of your nation and caused much tragedy and despair in others backyards.
To change you must not tolerate any intolerance. Intolerance must be gutted and destroyed. It must be hated, preached against, embedded in your children's thoughts and demonstrated in your actions. Not just political or religious, but in how you treat each other everyday.
The beginning is by acting what you hope to be like, not like what you are. In time you will become what you act like.
The writing is on the wall, change or it will be done for you and to you.
Rest In Peace Benazir Bhutto
Rot In Pieces Enemies of Freedom
#30
It is even more important to remember that the assassinations of The deaths of Lincoln, Kennedy, and even Indira Ghandi were wholly different (I'll admit to being unaware of the details of Mackenzie's assassination).
Lincoln and Kennedy, for example, were assassinated by lone gunman who, even if politically motivated, had no real power past their own deaths.
The assassination if Indira Ghandi was a bit more convoluted...certainly much closer to what happened in Pakistan today. Indira Ghandi had been feared by many as a tyrant and only started to gain real popularity after she was ejected from parliament and put on trial. It was after her return to power that she was killed.
This sounds similar enough to the current situation to be noteworthy. Of course, after her death sectarian violence broke out and things basically went to hell for a bit.
Of course, Indira Ghandi's assassination owes quite a bit to Operation "Blue Star."
However, the comparison to Archduke Ferdinand also bears looking at since it was an assassination carried out for political ends by a group that continued to work towards its stated goals, much like Al Qaeda today.
While I don't think this is going to plunge us into another World War, I'd also think it best not to quickly dismiss the possibility.
Whatever you want to say about Bhutto (and from what I understand, she wasn't the savior of Pakistan), she was the other choice in the election.
This would seem to ensure the election of Musharraf once again. If this was the US or Europe, he probably wouldn't stand a chance of winning, but in Pakistan, he's probably a shoe-in now.
My first thought was 'Archduke Franz Ferdinand' and apparently a lot of other people had exactly the same reaction. I actually feel sorry for Musharraf. It turns out that the state of emergency and her house arrest really were in place to keep her safe and stabilize the country. The moral choices that the Pakistani leadership is facing are so vastly more complicated than we can really understand.
As to the idea of isolationism - if it was ever a good idea, the cows are gone now. Don't waste your time closing the barn door. We're all in this together.
It's a sad and dangerous time in Pakistan. As Pakistan has nuclear weapons, that means it's a sad and dangerous time for the entire world.
---
Technical Writing Geek (27),
We tried isolationism once. At that time, a few foreign powers decided to take over Europe, exterminate the Jews and conquer the Pacific.
Isolationism doesn't work and never has. Your "neighborhood" is called "Earth". This is even more true today than it was in 1940, because today the weapons are far more devastating and far reaching. Islamic extremists having political clout in nuclear armed countries is everyone's nightmare scenario.
---
And I have no idea why some of you think that if we stop buying oil from the middle east, the problem will go away. In 2002, Canada led the world in our sources of imports, at 17%. We import more from Canada than we do from Iraq and Kuwait combined. Saudi Arabia, Mexico, and Venezuela were the top 2-4 suppliers in that year. (2002 was just the year I found data for first, I didn't pick it for any particular reason.) If you really think the Iraq war is about oil, then I'd like to hear your explanation on why we only get a small percentage of our oil from them.
Sm f y nd t lk p sm fcts bfr sptng ff bt wht rltnshp mrc's l nd hs t d wth plcs lk rn nd Pkstn. As far as I can tell, Pakistan doesn't export to us at all. We actually only represent 15% of Saudi Arabia's oil buyers (2004), so 85% of Saudi Arabian oil money is NOT coming from America (most of it is coming from Asia).
s mch s vryn sms t lv t blm vrythng n mrc ths dys, 'm frd the truth is that the people of the world are quite capable of engaging in massive conflicts without our involvement and in fact, seem most likely to do so when we refuse to get involved. Isolationism is probably the worst option on the table.
Ah, here's a good up-to-date site for checking my facts on American oil imports. Canada is still our #1 supplier.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
Yeah RCM, this is all about exports. My gd y rlly r gnrnt. Pls tll s mr bt hw trtr s n hnrbl, Chrstn thng why dn't y.
It's really sad to read comments from people who either blame the victim (Bhutto), make excuses for Musharaff (a dictator), or make blanket statements about the Middle East, while operating off of the assumption that the U.S. is doing so great right now.
If you can't have empathy for the dead, if you can't see outside of your own narrow worldview...well, that begins to become the definition of either the classic self-absorbed narcissist or a sociopath.
Have a little respect.
Bhutto Murder Not U.S. Sanctioned But...
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto today was not condoned or sanctioned by the United States. In fact, it was the U.S. that lead efforts to get Pakistan's General/ President Musharraf to open new democratic elections. Which seemed [on the surface in recent weeks/month] to be making some headway - inspite of recent stalling by Musharraf.
But...
I noticed 2 items this afternoon that lead me to question what our government knew and when they knew it.
Its no secret that Musharraf never wanted to give up any power. And if you have any potential rivals, the best thing you can do is to get rid of them.
So if they are out of the country, protected by another country? You need to find a way to bring them to you...which is just what he did by allowing the "promise of democratic elections".
I'd like to hope our government saw this one coming - although they've missed every other intelligent opportunity up till now - I can still hold out hope.
I posted originally here
#7 is obviously a troll. I suggest we all ignore it.
#30 & #35: I think Rajiv is a closer comparison than Indira.
#1: there's not going to be any war with India. If there was going to be any war, it would have been when Zia died (India was suspect #1 then).
#41: dictators do not need to kill opponents in secret. Remember Bhutto's father?
Noen, "oil" was brought up in 4 other comments, including 2 from you. Don't blast me for answering an idea that you introduced. rlz tht y hv nrrw wrld vw whr vrythng s th flt f Bsh, mrc nd/r l, bt 'm frd t's nt tht smpl, r vn rmtly tr. Nthr Bsh nr nyn "wnts" WW, Nn. Y shld b bttr thn tht. Ptty xggrtns d nt rlly hlp yr rgmnts.
"To me this 'sounds' like all are reading from a script."
Another way to look at it is that other nations are taking advantage of our moral bankruptcy. Any petty thug can now round up his political opponents and say "I'm protecting our homeland from terrorists". What are we going to say them, "Do as I say not as I do?"
"#1: there's not going to be any war with India."
Maybe dainel, I sure hope you are right.
It is always the peace makers who are assassinated.
Q: Who's more at fault: The shthds who cause the violence in shthls like Pakistan, Iran and Iraq, or those who decide to let ths shthds play their games while hiding behind isolationisms disguised by pcnk rhtrcls?
Bottom Line: If you let a bully continue bullying, eventually they'll cross over the line and do something *really* nasty. rdctng thm ftr th frst pnch s prbbly th sfst crs f ctn.
Man..this is tough stuff. Holding on to a deep trust in humanity's ability to support life on this Planet is wearing thin. So many simple things that support our healthy human planet relationship have been ripped off by leaders that haven't had a clue. We cannot continue to support a global culture that profits from death. If we are as good as I know ourselves to be lets turn our true Warriors loose under the guidance of a Department of Peace.
@ #45
"It is always the peace makers who are assassinated."
I call bullshit. Just because she's dead doesn't erase that fact that she was a corrupt, thieving, opportunist, political dynast, a lot closer to Bush than Gandhi. She might not have been any worse than the others, but she definitely wasn't any better.
Muslims Against Sharia condemn the murderers responsible for the assassination of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her supporters.
Our prayers are with the victims of this atrocity. We send our condolences to their loved ones.
May the homicide bomber rote in hell for eternity. May his accomplices join him soon!
http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2007/12/prime-minister-benazir-bhutto-murdered.html
RealCatholicMen said, " ... [if the] Iraq war is about oil, then I'd like to hear your explanation on why we only get a small percentage of our oil from them ... "
YOUR EXPLANATION
RCM, you know nothing about me or my worldview.
either Bush nor anyone "wants" a WWIII
Michel Ledeen:
Our "historic mission" is of course world wide domination. That the neocons have been pursuing global hegemony is no secret.
George Bush:
In Bush's view, stability in the middle east and the rest of the world is the problem. So if stability is the problem what is the solution?
Glenn Greenwald:
And that is what I mean when I say that the neocons got their wish today. George Bush, Dick Cheney and the rest of the neocons have been wishing to see this region go up in flames for some time now. And they are more than willing to make veiled references to end time theology if it helps their cause.
Condoleezza Rice
Many see Rice's comment here as referencing the Biblical phrase "birth pangs" (meaning the Apocalypse) welcomed by Christian extremists such as Pat Robertson.
And of course it's about oil.
Wht ds NY f tht hv t d wth Pkstn r Bhtt bng ssssntd? Tht's sm fn rntng, bt thnk y'r stryng nt cmpltly nrltd tpcs.
Bt s lng s w'r gng n wld ff tpc rnts wth Nn nd frnds, 'll chm n wth my wn Cnsprcy Thry:
"Grn" nrgy csts mr pr mgwtt t prdc thn ny thr frm f nrgy -- tht s, f w cnvrt t grn cnmy, w wll b pyng lt mr mny t nrgy prdctn cmpns fr th sm mnt f nrgy w r lrdy sng. Thrfr, mnknd's llgd blty t prdc ngh C2 t trrfrm th plnt s scm mnt t pwr mny mkng ntrprs tht wll dwrf th l nd cl ndstrs.
Tr, thr s vdnc tht mn s csng glbl wrmng, bt bvsly t's ll trmpd p t fd th bg mny grn nrgy ndstry.
Tr, thr s lt f vdnc tht Sddm Hssn dmnstrtd h cnnt b lft n chrg f n rmy cpbl f cnqrng hs nghbrs r h wll s t, h dfd N snctns fr yrs, cntnd t fr n rcrft nd hd hstry f prdcng nd sng chmcl wpns, bt tht ws ll trmpd p t fd th l ndstry.
Th Glf Wr s scm fr mny nd nrgy prmtd by Grg Bsh.
Glbl wrmng s scm fr mny nd nrgy prmtd by l Gr.
My grn cnsprcy nd yr l cnsprcy shr th sm trts: thy gnr lt f thr vdnc nd fcs n mny trl, ssmng tht mst b th cs f vrythng.
f nly t wr vr tht smply, Nn, f nly.
h, ntrstng tht my cmmnt gt ttckd, yt Nn's ff tpc trllng nd prsnl ttcks ds nt. t's shm t s fvrtsm bsd n dlgcl stnc.
s thr n rm n Bng Bng fr ppl wh d nt gr wth y, Trs?
Two things are true. First, Benazir Bhutto was astoundingly corrupt. Second, she was the best hope for democracy in Pakistan. Anyone who can't hold both those facts in his or her head isn't ready to play with the big kids.
If we really wanted a more stable and democratic Pakistan, we'd make it easier for them to sell us stuff they produce.
Machine (7), three strikes and you're out. I don't care whether those are your sincere opinions. They're appallingly ignorant. Lay off the weblogs for a while. Go read a high-school civics textbook and a good basic history of the world. And a map, while you're at it -- did you even notice the existence of Iran?
L'Elk (17), did they mention where the warm bodies were supposed to come from?
Doug Rogers (20), there are plenty of people in the world who wish they could throw that kind of force field around the United States. Nobody gets to do it. Nobody with any sense tries to pretend they do.
Jeff (22):
Yeah, that's pretty much our worldview.Ooooh, barely veiled condescension! Who are you with, the Conspiracy to Bring Back the Class System?I say they aren't. I say that point of view stands in direct contradiction to the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the other founding statements of our political system. Furthermore, I say that you have not a particle of evidence to back up the idea that some societies are better off under dictators. There's a vast amount of evidence that says the opposite.If so, then democracy is better. However, as we both know, no such equation exists. Chaos arises from many causes, and democracy produces many effects.Hogwash. If you're talking about the Greeks, democracy was hardly their undoing. Disunity, instability of purpose, and failure to take the long view plagued the nondemocratic city-states just as much as it did the democratic ones. Their real problems were that (1.) they were a decentralized trading culture with a tropism for littoral zones (i.e., they were physically indefensible); (2.) their region was too poor for them to support permanent professional military forces unless they gave up everything else (like Sparta) or committed themselves to a permanent state of expansion, conquest, and looting in order to pay for it (like Rome); and (3.) they were within relatively easy striking distance of people like the Macedonians, Romans, and Persians. And don't forget the real enemy (4.) of republics and democracies: oligarchies!Feel like demonstrating how this might be true of Pakistan? I see no reason to adopt that model.Technical Writing Geek (27), that never works. Besides, we'd have to stop buying stuff from all those crazy people (who aren't any crazier than we are), and you know we're not going to do that.
Jeff Vandermeer (40), you are a gentleman and a sage and a human being.
Wafflehead (44), consider the possibility that at this point, that other State Department official has more credibility than Condi Rice.
Anyone who guns down a major national politician and then sets off a bomb is pretty much by definition a murderous extremist. Besides, using that phrase meant they didn't have to teach George to say a new one.
Noen (54), good shot.
Tereas (57): I agree with you that Benazir Bhutto was corrupt as both her terms in office ended amid corruption scandals. Was she the best hope for democracy in Pakistan? Maybe at this point in time, yes. However, she was not the great bastion of democratic principles that the Western media makes her out to be. She compromised on the democratic principles when she negotiated a power-sharing deal with Musharraf, who still donned his military uniform, and had taken extensive steps to stifle the independence of the judiciary. While democracy requires the independent and proper functioning of each arm of the state, I have my doubts about whether Bhutto would have really respected the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan. After all, she could only return to Pakistan and run for office after Musharraf granted her special amnesty from all the corruption charges that had been pending against her for years.
Two things are true. First, Benazir Bhutto was astoundingly corrupt. Second, she was the best hope for democracy in Pakistan. Anyone who can't hold both those facts in his or her head isn't ready to play with the big kids.
RCM (56), don't give yourself airs. For that matter, don't award yourself points you don't have coming to you. You didn't get zapped because I disagree with your politics, or agree with Noen's. If anyone wants proof of that, they can read back up the thread, where most of your arguments are still standindg, and some of Noen's have been disemvowelled.
Nice attempt to confuse the issue, but that's not what happened. In fact, you got disemvowelled for crimes against the proper conduct of legitimate debate.
You made an assertion to counter Noen's arguments. She came back and dropped a 600-ton weight of evidence on top of your assertion. Instead of coming up with a counterargument or ceding her the point -- and propriety really did demand at that point that you do one or the other -- you refused to acknowledge it at all.
Instead, you dragged in a wild change of topic, a nonsensical and fraudulently symmetrical new model that as far as I can see can function only as a distraction, not as a sound basis for further real-world discussion of real-world issues.
It was a slick little piece of work -- but guy, I wasn't born yesterday. And as you've already found out on other occasions, I have a real loathing for prefab disinformation.
Jags, the Western media is doing their usual simpleminded heroes-and-villains thing. Benazir Bhutto was no shining hero of democracy. It's just that with her alive, democracy had a better chance of happening.
(Did you mean to leave my first paragraph at the bottom of your message? I'll remove it if you want.)
Teresa, I'm interested in why you think that Bhutto was Pakistan's best chance for democracy. My gut feeling about her is that her primary motivation has always been a desire to be the center of attention, which would be somewhat predictable given her upbringing. Yet, it creeps me out more than simple greed because it's a less reality oriented motivation and a more narcissistic one. Although I understand that being under house arrest was galling for her, did she ever really acknowledge the fact that 140 people were blown to smithereens when she made her Cleopatra-style triumphal entry into the city? Her assassination is arguably the first time that she has ever taken responsibility for the consequences of her actions. Her death is an enormous disaster, but I wonder if she had come to power again if she would have looked away from the mirror long enough to see the Taleban seizing the state.
Of course, it didn't take long for the truthers and kos kids to start blaming Bush, or saying that Bush wanted her death anyway...
The loony left makes me sick.
Bhutto would have been a force for positive change in Pakistan.
T @ #57 said "Second, she was the best hope for democracy in Pakistan."
I'm not sure being the best hope means anything in real terms. Who, for instance, is the best hope for America in terms of who shall be the next president. It's a subjective call at best.
Jeff said, "What if the amount of "chaos" is a society is inversly related to democracy?"
T said, "If so, then democracy is better. However, as we both know, no such equation exists. Chaos arises from many causes, and democracy produces many effects."
I think I don't know that to be true. Stating that something has many causes does not exclude a relationship.
As for all the other comments: it seems you don't like me questioning things, such as the idea that our way is the best way for all people all of the time. Guess we'll have to agree to be polite about it.
Jeff
#61 said, "My gut feeling about her is that her primary motivation has always been a desire to be the center of attention..."
From everything that I know of her background, she seems to have been hell-bent on causing a stir. Just like George W. seems to have been hell-bent to take on Sadam and have his war. Do we feel sorry for George? Our very own freedom fighter and Bringer of Democracy to Iraq? "We" all seem to think Democracy would be very good for Iraq and look how they've all embrased it. "We" know what's "right", because we say so. It's a good mindset. For a sheep.
Is there any chance of Pakistan delaying elections? Enough to let Bhutto's party select another candidate?
Trs, f y fl smthng pstd s "msnfrmtn", thn hw bt y pnt t t t m s tht cn dlvr frthr vdnc r xplntn, rthr thn smply gng n nd dtng my mssg s tht nbdy wll rd t?
My nw mstly nrdbl rply ws t Cwcd, wh pstd n "xplntn" lnk whch rd. t dscrbd hw th Glf Wr s bt l. Th lgc smd t b tht "l s thr, mny s nvlvd, >thrfr t mst b bt l nd mny". ll thr rsns fr th wr wr cmpltly gnrd.
My nlgy sd tht xct sm lgc t dmnstrt tht glbl wrmng mst ls b shm, fr th xct sm rsn.
My pnt ws tht y cn't lk t shrd f vdnc, bld n ntr thry rnd tht nd gnr ll f th thr vdnc. Y wld s my glbl wrmng nlgy s rdcls nd y wld s tht th l rgmnt s qlly rdcls.
r t pt t smply, "Crrltn ds nt mply cstn".
s fr Nn's rply, t s, frnkly, nnsns. qt frm Grg Bsh ws prvdd nd thn mmdtly msntrprtd. Hw d y gt "stblty s th prblm" t f tht? Tht s grssly gnrnt cnclsn. Stblty s th ky gl, prvdd t lvs rm fr frdm. Strct Shr lw s typ f "stblty", bt ndr tht frm f stblty, Bng Bng wld b bnnd. s tht th knd f stblty w wnt t s rs p n th wrld? Wld y sht dwn Bng Bng, wld Xn wr hjb nd gv p th rght t vt r ttnd schl n rdr t hv "stblty"? Sm frms f stblty hv t hgh f prc. Dn't b s qck t sll wy frdms jst s tht y cn hv yr stblty.
Clmng tht mrc wnts "wrld wd dmntn" s qlly rdcls. mrc's n tstndng ftr s tht w hv nvr hd dsr fr n mpr, s nglnd, Spn, Jpn, Grmny, tc, nc dd. Wht w wnt r brdrs tht d nt mv. W dn't wnt Chn t tk vr Twn. W ddn't wnt rq t hv Kwt. W dn't wnt Pkstn nd nd t brk nt wr vr thr brdrs. T clm tht mrc WNTS nclr wr btwn nd nd Pkstn s th vry hght f rdcls, vl nd cmpltly nsbstnttd sttmnts. Tht wll d nbdy ny gd. vn th "bld fr l" cry dsn't pply n Pkstn nd nd snc, s pntd t, >w dn't gt ny frm thm.
s fr Trs's "prfb" clms, 'm flttrd, trly. d prfrd my cmmnts nd th cmmnt y s hs bn rd thrgh t lst cpl f tms bfr ht "pst". 'm ls n pstn whr ngg n dbt n nrly dly bss, s hv lt f prctc. 'm flbbrgstd tht ths s nw crm tht ctlly lds t sspcn -- my rgmnts r pprntly >t gd? f y rlly thnk th gvrnmnt s gng t py smn t cm t Bng Bng nd pst, y nd t gt vr yr wn rs rthr thn tlk t m bt mn. Ths r my prsnl pnns, nd thy'r nt ncmmn.
Antinous (61), she was deeply flawed, no question about it. The short version is that she was an intelligent, professional politician, and the focus of a great deal of hope by people working for a more liberal and democratic Pakistan. They were disappointed in her some years back, when word came out about the extent of Bhutto family corruption; but they are reacting now to her assassination as a Very Bad Thing. I figure they know the score.
Granted, a better person in her (pre-assassination) position would have been preferable; but there is no such person in her position. There's not a worse person in her position, either. Her death is a blow to the whole enterprise of popularly elected government.
Defiant (62), that made no sense at all. I don't mean I disagree with it; I mean your comment literally didn't make sense. This isn't a thread full of Kos regulars and conspiracy theorists. Bush isn't the primary focus of the discussion. You have no realistic idea of what "the left" is, or does, or thinks.
Jeff (63), I need to apologize. I had the volume cranked up too high when I responded to you last night.
I'm fine with questioning things. I just hold to the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The idea that people might be better off under a dictatorship certainly qualifies.
First: what we know about dictatorships is that the people ruled by them have no transparent or universally accessible mechanisms for exerting pressure on behalf of their own interests. This institutionalizes inequity, and is an inherent loss of feedback, proprioception, and information within the system.
The natural focus of dictatorships is on the interests of the small group of people running them, and their politics devolve into the politics of that group. (See post-republican Rome, passim.) Benevolent dictatorships don't stay benevolent. Technocratic dictatorships don't stay smart.
The natural failure modes of dictatorship are tyranny, corruption, nepotism, incompetence, arbitrary and unproductive policies, and the gross misallocation of resources. (See: Tsarist Russia, Stalinist USSR, the Ancien Regime, Juche North Korea, et endless cetera.) Like all collapsed political systems, the end state strongly resembles Tony Soprano's organization writ large.
People chafe under dictatorship, and take something better when they can get it. This has been the case throughout recorded history. You would thus need some fairly striking evidence and explanations on your side if you wanted to argue that dictatorship may be a more workable option.
Second: Over the years, I've seen a fair number of people argue that dictatorship might be an appropriate model for government. What I've never seen them argue is that it might be an appropriate model for people like themselves.
It's always put forward as a possible model for those people over there: other countries, other colors, other ethnic and religious backgrounds, et cetera. We know dictatorship wouldn't work for us; but for those people over there -- sure, it'd probably work just fine. After all, they don't have our hopes, our dreams, our smarts, our drive, our individuality. They'll be content to have unchanging order and someone to tell them what to do.
It's never true.
Here's a rule of thumb: any time you see a human population described as having a timeless, cyclical, myth-driven, traditional worldview -- as opposed to being conscious that they are part of the linear, causally-linked, non-repeating course of events that constitutes real human history -- the people thus described are being objectified, and the description is false.
That timeless, cyclical, ahistorical mindset evaporates as soon as they realize that there are other options, and that change is possible. Once that happens, you can't get it back. All you can do is force a population to pretend they still think that way. It's not the same thing at all.
I've seen this happen in my own lifetime. When I was a kid, you still got commentators and pundits saying that "the nine-to-fiver," "the average man," wanted light entertainment, a predictable workday, and enough consumer goods to keep up with the neighbors. He (it was "he" back then) had no kinks, no artistic leanings, no interest in the life of the mind, and no original ideas, and if you gave him more leisure time he wouldn't know what to do with it. When home computers came along, they said the average household had no use for one, except to play Pong and organize recipes.
You know how that worked out. Once people got onto the internet, that timeless cyclical undifferentiated mindset of "the common man" blew away like smoke. Everyone turned out to have hopes, dreams, ambitions, kinks, views, schemes for beating the system, areas of surprising expertise, and proposals for online startups.
All those otherish-seeming peoples out there are the same way. If you think Pakistanis are unsophisticated and unambitious, the kind of people who have only a rudimentary grasp of politics and would be happy to live under a dictatorship, all I can say is that you can't have dealt with many of them.
Onward.
Tsk. You're the one who's asserting that that relationship exists. That makes you responsible for substantiating its existence.Then there's the principle (see above) that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. As far as I know, the idea that there's an inverse relationship between chaos and democracy is original to you, which makes substantiation even more your responsibility.
And on top of that, we have a good solid counterexample: the United States under the Articles of Confederation, which combined a great deal of democracy with a great deal of chaos.
I'm solid. You're the one standing on air. Besides, you're asking me to demonstrate that the relationship does not exist -- i.e., prove a negative. I must politely decline.
RCM, if I thought your comments were too good, I'd say so. I didn't.
Comment #53 may not be in the running for Most Coherent Statement Ever Posted by Cowicide, but he or she has a long history of making apposite, well-informed, and amiable comments.
Teresa (67), "Over the years, I've seen a fair number of people argue that dictatorship might be an appropriate model for government. What I've never seen them argue is that it might be an appropriate model for people like themselves."
That's funny. Cuz it's true. I know a lot of otherwise nice people who never question the assumption that US world domination is the natural order of things. That freaks me out more than anything. And it's not just about 'over there'. Living in Southern California, there's a vast underclass of invisible, inaudible 'little, dark people' who don't seem to qualify for human rights, let alone hopes and dreams.
T - I have to say that when you make a comment like
"Two things are true. First, Benazir Bhutto was astoundingly corrupt. Second, she was the best hope for democracy in Pakistan. Anyone who can't hold both those facts in his or her head isn't ready to play with the big kids." and then chastise someone for "crimes against the proper conduct of legitimate debate."
I have to wonder what exactly is going on. The first is a statement of fact, the second is YOUR opinion, but an opinion that you hold so tightly as to state that those who don't agree simply aren't up to snuff.
What exactly are the rules here on Boing Boing? Carry on a discussion in a way that you don't see fit and get censored, DISAGREE with you and get dismissed.
Aren't Moderators supposed to MODERATE rather than simply enforce their opinions?
I WHOLLY disagree that Benazir Bhutto was the best hope for democracy in Pakistan. I think she was more of the same wearing a different face. Certainly electing a leader for whom INTERPOL had arrest warrants for isn't a great move for Democracy. Nor is electing a person who had, in the past, used the position to merely line their own pockets.
One could argue that being ABLE to vote for Bhutto was a great step for Democracy, but a vote for rampant corruption is HARDLY a vote towards a healthy democracy.
Terribly sorry if you feel I'm not bombastic enough to "play with the big kids."
She evidently believed in an islamic society which as we can see, just like every other nation with a thick-headed insistence on a religious constitution, encourages the combination of patriotism and martyrdom. Can there be a more futile alliance if the goal is a peacefull tolerant world?
Antinous: It's natural for them and they like it that way? Yeah, I've heard that one.
I'm fond of Jim Henley's related formulation: America's persistent failure in foreign relations lies in not understanding that other countries have rednecks too.
Anyone who doesn't think that other countries have rednecks has never spent any time in the Gatwick departure lounge.
Ceronomus, I'm sorry if you're upset. I've always enjoyed your comments, and I value your presence here.
I'm working on a set of guidelines. I've never liked having explicit rules because it makes rules-lawyering possible. What I've come to understand is that Boing Boing's audience is too big and diverse, and the conversations too short, for us to operate without them. Also, it's come to my attention that many newbies are more comfortable about posting comments if know they're not breaking unstated rules.
The rules (for certain values of that word) of debate and argumentation are independent of content. If Noen's and RCM's positions had been reversed, I'd have disemvowelled Noen instead.
Believe me, I don't enforce my views here. You couldn't begin to reconstruct my opinions by looking at all times I've intervened. For the record, the first person I ever disemvowelled -- the one for whom the technique was invented -- was a flaming leftist.
I participate in discussions for several reasons. One of the biggest is my belief that non-participating moderators, ones who aren't part of the conversation and the community, are less effectual. All they can do is fly over errant commenters and drop bricks on their heads. That's not my idea of nuanced communication.
Another reason is that I'm hoping people will respond. I'd be happy if Jeff responded by explaining how he came to theorize that chaos and democracy are inversely related. I'll admit -- in fact, I have admitted -- that I had the volume turned up too high the first time I replied to him.
I'm generally rooting for people to respond to each other. It doesn't happen often enough. You don't see me punching the air and shouting "Yes!" when a comment thread turns genuinely conversational, but I assure you, I do it. Paying attention to each other: always good.
Moving on to Benazir Bhutto: Being a big kid is a question of complexity, not bombast. When I made that comment, I was reacting to the oversimplification of her as either a sainted martyr or a crook who should have been thrown out with the trash. That misrepresentation polarizes the conversation into two unsatisfactory modes: "Woe, they always kill the good ones," and "Good, they finally got rid of her." Neither does justice to the real situation.
I don't think Benazir Bhutto was the best hope Pakistani democracy could have had. I think she was the best hope they had at this moment. If you can keep democracy happening, you can work on improving it. It's like shimming a structure with a bad piece of lumber to keep it standing while you do repairs.
I'm a gradualist, obviously. I think formulations like "things have to get worse before they can get better" are false unless you're talking about going into labor. In complex political situations, a partial good is almost always better than no good at all, unless you can guarantee that that condition of no good will shortly give way to something much better. But that doesn't happen very often; and so -- swapping carpentry for paint -- we go on working to squeeze a little bit more white into the grays that are our default palette.
I still disagree that she was the best hope they had. She's NOT the only candidate running. Perhaps ONE of the others might not be as corrupt as the rest? Perhaps her assassination might galvanize those who want change into voting in a cohesive block.
I'm not saying her death is the BEST thing that could've happened, but it COULD lead to change.
There are posts here from someone by the name of MACHINE, the like of which beggar credence.
Displaying epic ignorance he suggests that all of the problems,both in Pakistan and from reading his other posts apparently the rest of the world, by the judiscious application of bullets.
This crusader style advocacy of "Kill em all and god will know his own" sits rather uncomfortably with the notion that it is an "ethical clean up".
A real display of frankly monsterous stupidity,willful ignorance and erroneous ethical hubris.
Ceronomus: we're well within the range of civilized disagreement.
Any idea who the other candidates are, btw? Google's choked. "Bhutto" gets you assassination coverage, and "candidate OR candidates" gets you the public statements made about it by U.S. presidential candidates.
Error404, Machine has been encouraged to develop his talents elsewhere.