Pakistan's Bhutto Killed in Attack
POSTED BY: deadlockvictim
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 16:40
VIEWED: 12906
PAGE 8 of 16
Quote:I did read all that. It's really no new information added on to what I quoted, and doesn't change my point.
Originally posted by Hero:
I understand how you feel, but don't let your feelings get in the way of what needs done.
I note for the record that in war sometimes the only way to tell the good guys from the bad guys is that the good guys regret what they have to do.
It does bring something else up, however. It shows the assumptions you make. The other side feels no guilt, right? YOU and those on your side are the only ones who feel noble emotions? The guy who shot Bhutto is a cardboard cutout villian who was born and grew up with no emotions except the EVIL kind, right? Ahh yes - he was a veritable Reaver. He never experienced his own 9/11, never had people he loved killed or tortured by foreigners. He never had his own way of life threatened by invaders. He never had a brave, noble-seeming leader tell him that he could save his friends and family by making his own sacrifice. He never had anyone say to him: "The question mankind has always struggled with is 'are you willing to kill for them [your moral beliefs]'? If that answer is no then I'd suggest your cause is doomed to failure." And he never turned his enemies into unfeeling villians in his mind, so that he could make himself carry out his cowardly attack.
In case you aren't seeing it, my point is not to defend this man. It's to stress how similar your mentality is to his. Your reasons to torture are no better than his reasons to murder.
And this isn't about our brave soldiers in the field. This is about us, America, as a society, encouraging our brave soldiers to torture helpless, innocent people. This is about us doing that and then turning around and condeming Bhutto's killer, as if we have a special right to cross moral lines but no one else does.
Giving yourself rights that you don't allow others is childish. Answering every challenge with violence is childish. Answering every debate with name-calling is childish. (I'm not speaking of you here, just offering my own definition of "childish". Do what you like with it.
)-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"because it's just wearying being attacked on a personal level. There are some really interesting lines of thinking that you've introduced. But I just don't want to wade through the personal bullshit in order to get to it."
Which is, Causal, why they do it.
If they can run off or drown out any voices contrary to their little fantasies, then it makes them feel like they've "won" - it bothers me quite a bit that there doesn't seem to be room in our society anymore to just agree to disagree anymore, but rather the impetus to smash down everyone who does not agree with one.
I think that's silly, myself, for without multiple viewpoints and input, any form of thought tends to stagnate, but we're generally not talkin thought, but rather belief - folks have invested mentally in these concepts to the point of Faith of an almost religious order, and no amount of reason, evidence or logical argument is gonna move em... I only really argue the points for lurkers who don't dare post for the same reasons you yourself are weary of this "discussion" already... but for mine own, I look at the example of a decent man I have idolized long before most folk ever heard of him, when you see a Congressional vote of 434-1, you can prettymuch guess who the 1 is, right ?
So if I stand alone in standing for my principles, well, I will do just that.
As for torture, cause make no bones about it that IS what it is, it's the most useless, worthless counterproductive form of obtaining information, and all it does is flood your database with worthless information to the point of making it unuseable via false positives outweighing any real data.
We've done this dance before, the moment you go hands-on in the interrogation process, you have lost, cause once the torture starts, they'll tell you anything you wanna hear just to make it stop and 99.995% of it is pure fiction that wastes time effort and resources to disprove.
And so instead of getting real data to act on, you wind up torturing some jerk who knows nothing, thus radicalizing his entire extended family and giving them good reason to hate us and want us dead - and all he gives you is a couple names of people that also don't know anything just to make the torture stop, and you torture them, and what happens but that you wind up doin that to everyone you can get your hands on and never learning a damned thing while making the entire region despise you, and quite rightfully.
A PROPER interrogation uses different methods, people are human and done RIGHT, one can play on their pride, sympathies and frailties to get them to spill all kinds of useful things and never even know they handed off the football.
But that utterly requires an understanding of the people you're dealing with, something that has been passionately and deliberately resisted by the cabal in power - they don't WANT to understand them cause that would humanise them and they are too busy using hate and propaganda to DE-humanise them, thus making it easier for americans to hate them and be less resistant to the idea of slaughtering and torturing them wholesale like we're doing.
For all the fussing about their Zealotry towards us, I fail to see how ours towards them is in any way more morally justified or any saner - and on top of that let's be brutally blunt here, the folks in Iraq we're doin it to didn't DO jack diddly crap to us, had zip-diddly to do with 9-11, and under Hussein, who WE propped up in the first place to put the screws to Khomeni after the Iranians threw down The Shah, who WE also propped up, they actually HAD a secular government, if not a very nice one.
But even if you ditch the politics, WHY they do this stuff is pretty obvious - if you were just trying to get by, and someone invaded your country, bombed your church, shot up your neighborhood, killed a bunch of your friends and took your uncle and brother off and tortured them - you'd be pretty pissed about it, wouldn't you ?
Barring the "They're all evil" propaganda, which is EXACTLY the same no matter which direction it's com
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Ah, the 'taking your ball and going home' argument. Never could figure my way around that one.
If one no longer enjoys the game, is one compelled to continue playing? Not that I can see. So why shouldn't I just "take my ball and go home"? It's no longer an enjoyable discussion.
Quote:
If your position is not childish, argue it.
For the record:
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Here's my trouble with that line of thinking. In order to prevent these sorts of incidents, you'd have to cast a pretty broad net. After all, it's not as though anybody would have the luxury of saying, "One of these five guys has the knowledge we're after. So if we just practice 'harsh interrogation' on these five guys, we'll be able to prevent terrorist attacks." No, I think that you'd have to practice "harsh interrogation" on basically anyone who you suspect of having even a moderate degree of involvement. Obviously, that's going to be one hell of a lot of people. So the question is this, to my way of thinking: is the possible prevention of terrorist acts (read: the saving of lives) worth the broad application of torturous interrogation tactics? I have come to the conclusion that it is not. Because the use of such tactics represents moral compromise, in my view. I do not think that the use of morally objectionable means in order to prevent morally objectionable acts is justifiable. Will that mean the loss of life from terrorist attacks? Yes, and no doubt I'll be attacked on those grounds. But let us not lose sight of the fact that the moral culpability for those acts rests squarely on those who perpetrate them. I refuse to allow a misplaced sense of moral responsibility to lead me to the commission of moral wrong-doing. Let us not be persuaded by ends-justify-the-means reasoning. Does the prevention of terrorist acts justify torture? In my opinion, no, it does not.
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
hero, the problem is that labels like "childish"... aside from being pejorative... don't tell us much. Now, if you were to say (as you did) "willing to make tough, unpopular decisions" that provides a bigger basis for discussion.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whoops, sorry, I thought this thread was about Bhutto's assassination. My mistake.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thread drift caused by classic space dementia, cause they're all paranoid and crochety...
Ya kinda get used to it.
Seriously tho, pitch your two cents, give some input, or offer your thoughts on the matter of Bhuttos assassination and likely effects and outcomes.
I am still waitin for more info to be collected and distilled, but the whole thing has a distinctly fishy aroma to it from what I have seen so far, but a lot of stuff has to be crosschecked, rumors discarded, and evaluated before any sense can be really made of it.
If I had to speculate from just the available info without regard to it's veracity, I would have to say the ISI would be prime suspect, penetration was a little too thorough, it took too many people, and was too well timed an executed for amateurs, no matter how well practiced.
The bomb seems to be a plan-B afterthought, cause apparently, from some accounts, she was hit by rifle bullets from multiple positions (or a kennedy magic bullet, meh) prior to it going off.
Any newsie who refers to an AK47 as a sniper rifle oughta be slapped tho, an AK is an assault rifle, the AK-frame sniper variant is a Dragunov.
No matter how ya slice it tho, it looks awful bad to be Musarraf about now, even if he had little or naught to do with it, folks are going to be suspiciously glaring at him, and the ball is in his court on what to do about that - the possibility of being violently lynched does well exist and is likely figuring rather prominently in his thoughts about now.
Here's for hoping his statemanship is up to the task, cause a fumble at this point would result in a great deal of really needless bloodshed.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Whoops, sorry, I thought this thread was about Bhutto's assassination. My mistake.
...yeah, these 'discussions' between folks with differing opinions do seem to veer from the original topic... not that that's a bad thing - as upset as I sometimes get from a rationale that is so different from my own, I do try to weigh one side against the other - it's just that so often one side of the argument carries so little weight....
but, cluck the duck - to each his own - right?
Soooo – to add quick dos centavos - as far as the effect of Prime Minister Bhutto’s assassination will have on the U.S., Senator Arlen Specter says, “It complicates life for the American government.”….. well duh…..shoulda thought of that a little sooner, eh? Seems to me that with all the tough talk by BushCo about fighting a war on terror, our government still shovels out butt-loads of money to a regime led by an “ally” who seems totally indifferent to the re-establishment of Taliban rule along his countries border with Afghanistan – an area some believe is indeed the home sweet hideout of bin LadenCo. Leaders in Washington have ignored Pakistan’s pro-Islamist past while pretending the corrupt regime of President Musharraf is good – offering leniency for billion-dollar debts, lifting economic sanctions and treating the dictator like some freedom-loving statesman.
With the death of Benazir Bhutto, the slim hope of a stabilizing force in the region has certainly faded.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't think Musharrif was directly involved, but his army & police & secret service are heavily infiltrated by Al Qaida & Taliban. If he's "guilty" of anything, it would be not providing Bhutto with enough security. And the USA ( Condi Rice especially ) bears some responsibility as well. She & Bush urged her out of exile in Dubai to come back to Pakistan and help Bush's precarious position with that dictatorship by having democratic elections....maybe not the best frikkin' idea, and certainly the US should have been able to somehow guard this brave woman.
You may get to see your "anarchist" world much sooner than you think Mr. Minister. Pervy is the ONLY thing right now keeping the jihadists from getting their fingers on the nukes, something like 60 of them. I don't know what missles they are attached to and how far they can fly, but if Pervez is assassinated (been 12 attempts)and the "government" falls, Al Qaida will have that nuclear arsenal at their disposal. Their track record indicates they won't hesitate to use it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Follow-up question :
If the worst-case scenario occurs.....Al Qaida gets Pakistan's nukes, then our satellites detect a launch....What do we do?
a) Launch a nuclear strike to wipe out the threat ( the neo-con conservative way )
b) Try talking & negotiating with them...maybe use Jesse Jackson or Pelosi to broker a deal ( the intellectual thinking liberal way )
c) Let Israel wipe them out ( the usual way )
???
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Smart move at this point would be reaching out to the moderates who supported Bhutto and helping them direct their rage and fury at the radical militants who wanted Bhutto out of the picture, whether they actually did it or not - given that as I've repeatedly stated, a lot of em are practically looking for an excuse to be shut of the crazy bastards - and this sure hell gives em one, once THAT problem is dealt with, let them decide what the heck to do with Mushie, it's their country, and our meddling is a great part of what keeps them jerks in power.
If things get too chaotic, appeal to the IAEA and send a multinational force with representative forces from each country to keep the nukes secure until there's a stable government to turn em over to, not many would disagree with that cause nobody in their right mind wants to see a mushroom cloud.
Too many times the US has used flimsy excuses like this to prop up some real jackasses, and it's always, always, bit us on the ass down the road - ain't it time we learned our lesson ?
If the moderates are so tired of these radical numnutz that they wish to slaughter em, I say it's past time we got our nose out of it and let that happen.
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME