Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Darius on December 27, 2007, 10:09:22 am
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7161590.stm
Pakistan's opposition leader Benazir Bhutto has been assassinated in a suicide attack.
A tragedy for Pakistan, just when there was a real hope that they can reconcile the fundamentalist Islamic activists and those wanting proper democratic process :(
*sits back and watches the country continue to tear apart*
-
Yeah. I just saw that on the news. It's a real pisser and no mistake.
With luck this will actually sicken many of those wavering and actually help draw support away from the extremists like when ETA basically destroyed any support they had in Spain by killing a judge.
-
Is it suspected that Islamic elements did this, or rogue ISI? Because if there's even a hint of Musharraf being behind it, it's going to drive the majority of Pakistanis to Sharif. If not, Musharraf could actually benefit by playing to "we have to get tough on the Muslim parties" line.
Anyway, rest in peace.
-
Musharraf loses either way. If the public believes that Islamic Militants are to blame, they will decry him for failing to stop them sooner. If they don't, then the only logical alternative is to blame the state. His state.
Musharraf, right or wrong, has no way to win this one.
-
Yep. While in the long run I can possibly see this going well for him I very much doubt he's behind it. It's kinda like burning down your house for the insurance money...while you remain inside so as to not get charged for arson.
-
Well then. This is potentially damning.
This will more likely than not kill a bit of support for Musharraf, yes. It'll also disillusion quite a bit of people from politics in general.
-
Just a weird tidbit I caught here:
The United Nations Security Council held an emergency session and later said it "unanimously condemned" the assassination.
Wow. They sure did a lot with that one, didn't they? All hail the mighty UN for saving us all. And on top of that, who would actually condone an assassination anyway?
-
UN is impotent. No ammount of viagra can get that sucker up and runing.
-
That's one way to put it. It's a pity it's the way it is.
-
Wow. They sure did a lot with that one, didn't they? All hail the mighty UN for saving us all. And on top of that, who would actually condone an assassination anyway?
The USA (http://www.638waystokillcastro.com/)?
I think the emergency session was more about them running around and shouting "What the **** is going to happen in Pakistan now!" than the statement.
-
Oh wow, that website is hilarious. Nice design too.
I'd have to agree. The immediate result is riots, as shown already. The long term affects . . . hmm.
-
Wow. They sure did a lot with that one, didn't they? All hail the mighty UN for saving us all. And on top of that, who would actually condone an assassination anyway?
The USA (http://www.638waystokillcastro.com/)?
I think the emergency session was more about them running around and shouting "What the **** is going to happen in Pakistan now!" than the statement.
More specifically, I meant what country would go into a meeting of the UN and yell out that they were glad she was killed?
-
Can anyone say 'CIA'?
-
Not me. The US has nothing to gain and a lot to lose by her death. Meanwhile, a lot of people in that country hated her enough to kill her.
-
It's win-win for the US.
Either it drives Pakistan into having an anti-extremist government, or it turns the country into a cluster**** and helps the propaganda war against Islam.
-
It's win-win for the US.
Either it drives Pakistan into having an anti-extremist government, or it turns the country into a cluster**** and helps the propaganda war against Islam.
You call that a win-win? The hell's wrong with you.
-
It's win-win for the US.
Either it drives Pakistan into having an anti-extremist government, or it turns the country into a cluster**** and helps the propaganda war against Islam.
an0n, what's probably going to happen is the current leader is going to use this and the subsequent riots as an excuse to crack down on the country. And the second one, Pakistan becoming a cluster****, doesn't help the US at all.
If you're going to spout the usual anti-US rhetoric, at least be intelligent about it.
EDIT: By the way, why are we starting an anti-US rhetoric in this thread? Get back on topic, until something is proven, this has nothing to do (and probably won't have anythign to do) with the US.
-
Pakistan has nuclear weapons.
Aside from it being a perfect opportunity to go "OMG BROWN PEOPLE WITH NUKES!" and further the propaganda war by ranting about muslims and nukes and how close Pakistan is to Iraq, it also means the US can strengthen it's case for having a missile defence system built in Europe, this helps them reign in and piss off the Russians.
All the Russians can do once their missiles are useless is go "**** Europe" and cut off the gas, forcing Europe to rely on American and British petrochemical companies for fuel.
Oh, and the Russians won't cut off Europe from oil, because oil control and money is virtually the only thing propping the Russian government up - it'd be suicide to stop their own and biggest flow of cash. Not only that, but the missile defense system has been proven to be almost useless - it won't do anything about "reigning in" the Russians.
-
A destabilization of a nuclear power is against everyone's interests, the US included. I know the fad is to assume that the US has an evil hand in everything in the entire world, but honestly, I don't think anyone in power in the US's government wants terrorists with nukes. Also, if you haven't noticed, there are no indications that the US is going "OMG BROWN PEOPLE WITH NUKES". Lastly, I have not heard anything about the US and it's missile defense system, and honestly, they don't need an excuse to build it there - they don't have one now, this won't suddenly change everyone's minds.
-
A destabilised Pakistan is the last thing the US (and UK) wants. Once the mess has been resolved in Afghanistan, they don't need the entire northwest of Pakistan for the Taliban to run back to. Wasn't that how they were able to regain their strength before?
-
Exactly. So can we please discuss this topic and not immediately point fingers at the US for everything? It is in no way relevant to the discussion at hand.
-
More specifically, I meant what country would go into a meeting of the UN and yell out that they were glad she was killed?
As I said the main part of the meeting was to figure out their policy. Condemning the assassination is automatic for these people. It probably took them all of ten minutes.
As for the US being behind it, I very much doubt it. Bush's government doesn't have the subtlety to do something like this and has more worrying problems than Pakistan even if they did.
-
As for the US being behind it, I very much doubt it. Bush's government doesn't have the subtlety to do something like this and has more worrying problems than Pakistan even if they did.
Your logic astounds me. If they did have the subtlety, you jolly well wouldn't have a clue that they were behind it, now, would you? Since when did assassinations require loads of subtlety?
:p
-
If the Bush government were capable of subtlety, explain Iraq.
-
The Pakistani ISI is one of the most capable covert services in the region. They'd have no need of US help, which would not be particularly necessary. Interestingly enough, I was listening to the radio on the way home. They happened to be playing several interviews with Bhutto; in one she actually mentioned the threat of the ISI. Too bad that she didn't look out for her own security enough. She also mentioned her dislike of the USA's support of Musharaf alongside her condemnation of terrorism.
Had the assasination attempt somehow failed, however, the US would likely do everything in its covert power to ensure that Bhutto was never elected. Bush was not keen on several of Bhutto's policies, namely granting more independence to the tribal areas on the Afghan border and "destabilizing" the country with democracy. Much preferred is the Musharaf way of keeping a tight grip on the judiciary and government religious institutions.
-
Al Quaida took responsibility...that was a bad move for them.
Now we need to get their leaders and kiiiiiiiiil them. Poison....
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/f/fb/Yzmacat.jpg)
-
If the Bush government were capable of subtlety, explain Iraq.
Long (10+) years of sanctions being ignored? An inexplicable need to pretend (or otherwise) that they had WMD?
-
And that's subtle? What's average then? The H-bomb?
-
:wtf: Blatantly disregarding ceasefire terms does not call for subtle responses!!
-
So we're back to them not being subtle then aren't we?
Bhutto was one of America's biggest allies in Pakistan. If America were going to try a subtle plan they would have picked another target most likely.
-
Al Quaida took responsibility...that was a bad move for them.
Source?
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7163307.stm
-
Well, looks like another stupid move for Al-Queda. They might have bolstered their backing with hard line extremists with this move, but my speculation says that they just screwed themselves over with anyone sitting on the fence.
IMO, anyway.
-
Now the question is did they really plan it, everyone knows Bush could fart on prime TV and Al-Queda would say they put the extra beans in his food.
-
For those who don't actually read the links, it's the Pakistanis who've said that old AQ did it. They themselves have said nothing.
-
That might not mean much since people tend to rely on assumptions most of the time. I don't even need to point to Bush to say the Iraq war was orchestrated that way.