Bomb Kills Benazir Bhutto - Page 3 - PhillyBlog

gravenewworld · #21 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 08:22 PM

LOL Bhutto

-stole 1.5 billion dollars
-known in her country for terrible human rights violations
-more popular in the west than at home
-didn't allow media freedom while PM even though she criticized Musharraf for doing the same

Bhutto is NO martyr.

frankdialogue · #22 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 08:29 PM

[quote=AMonte;657294]Looks like initial reports are pointing to al Qaeda:

Al-Qaida again?...Al-CIAda?

ChiefSalsa · #23 (**permalink**) 12-27-2007, 08:31 PM

Bhutto and Musharraf are two sides of the same coin. It is Pakistan that sucks, at least politcally.

Bush haters can now talk about how he killed off Bhutto---when the facts are she was in the middle of a crowd, did not take proper security precautions, and was targeted recently for death.

We did lose another Sadat. More like a Warren Harding.

Jayfar · #24 (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyaggie

U.S. government never has really cared much about spreading democracy anywhere.

Least of all here in the US.

Noodles · #25 (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyaggie

you don't think Musharraf has said the same thing dozens of times? Okay, so he has faced purported assasination attempts himself. But one never really knows who these attackers are.

BTW, do you know that the last military dictator of Pakistan, Gen Zia ul Haq died in a mysterious plane crash in 1989... right after the Soviets decided to withdraw from Afghanistan. Many have said it was the CIA who knocked him off, seeing that the U.S. didn't need his services anymore. Promptly thereafter, U.S. not only left Pakistan (diplomatically speaking), but also yanked all sorts of financial and military aid which until then was flowing to Pakistan (and Afghanistan) uninterrupted. U.S. also refused to send F-16s to Pakistan that it had already paid for. All this because now suddenly U.S. found out (!) that Pakistan was busy developing a nuke bomb and was in cahoots with China and North Korea about it all. So, basically, Pakistan has been used like a fiefdom and its leaders have been bought and sold by Uncle Sam for a long time now. Just like so many other lesser nations had to endure during the Cold War. Then Americans wonder why others "hate us so much." Well, duh. Anyways that a different topic.

All this talk of demoracy (in Pakistan) is really sham to those who have followed the politics of the Indian subcontinent. Just because you have an election doesn't make you a democracy, either. U.S. government never has really cared much about spreading democracy anywhere. It is the pretext used to beat up on those that are seen to be against U.S. interests. Nobody gave a damn in D.C. when Putin went about his war in Cechnya back in 2001...he was dealing with "terrorists" then. Now that oil is expensive and Putin is his own man and doesn't want to play nice with the West, he is suddenly the second coming of Ruskie Bear, out to get us... and he's so undemocractic! haha

You are so on time with this post. Glad someone has the stomach to play hard ball. I sure don't.

phillyaggie · #26 (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 02:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jayfar

Least of all here in the US.

Yeah, no kidding!

I was watching a PBS documentary show (Independent Lens) focusing on the life and times of Ralph Nader. The way that guy and the Green Party (along with other 3rd parties) got shafted by the Presidential Debate Commission (a private org made up of the past president each of Dems and 'Publicans) from ever making it to the venue, nevermind appearing in the debate in the 2000 election.

Noodles, did I notice a hint of sarcasm in your comment, or was that meant to be taken literally? I had removed myself from all the media coverage of Bhutto's assasination all day long until the evening when I find out that most of them took the sympathetic tack, of course. Not that I'm not sad as well. But, to me, like you said, I guess I'm okay with the hard ball approach. Refreshingly, the News Hour did have one analyst who took that tack, but he was not given much time on air. hehe

raider.adam · #27 (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by phillyaggie

U.S. government never has really cared much about spreading democracy anywhere.

That, sir, is incorrect.

seand · #28 (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 11:09 AM

The US saw Bhutto as voice for secularism and multi-party democracy who would give legitimacy to Mucharaf's election process while continuing to push him from within the government more in that direction. On at least that they were right. Without Bhutto the path towards legitmate democracy in Pakistan is much less clear. In fact the whole prospect of propping up Musharaf and just "hoping" things get better is much, much more problematic.

Colin P. Varga · #29 (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 12:04 PM

http://www.csmonitor.com/photosofthe...HUTTO/&image=1

phillyaggie · #30 (**permalink**) 12-28-2007, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raider.adam

That, sir, is incorrect.

i'm convinced!