Pakistan's Bhutto Killed in Attack
POSTED BY: deadlockvictim
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 14, 2026 16:40
VIEWED: 12906
PAGE 4 of 16
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Yanno, I was all ready to talk about what this means for the future of Pakistan and for the region. Whether or not there could ever be an "orange" revolution in the area, and if this might set the stage for it. But peeps like Hero and Jongsstraw throw so much chaff into the air it's hard not to respond. I try not to, I really do. I should know better and just ignore them.
Wow. You just can't stop with the partisan bullshit, can you?- Signy
Careful. That's a knife that cuts both ways.- Causal
So ...
I try to keep a realistic eye on what's REALLY going on. (For example, part of the reason why Iraq is settling down is because it IS being partitioned... something I've advocated for years.) And I have a strange feeling that this might be a turning point for Pakistan: That it might reject both authoritarian rule AND Muslim extremists. Five or ten years from now, when Pakistanis look back, they might mark this as the signal event of change.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
You lied. You said you won't talk to me. Always gots ta have the last word, huh? FIGURES
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I was all ready to talk about what this means for the future of Pakistan and for the region. Whether or not there could ever be an "orange" revolution in the area, and if this might set the stage for it. I try to keep a realistic eye on what's REALLY going on. (For example, part of the reason why Iraq is settling down is because it IS being partitioned... something I've advocated for years.)
It's Waziristan that's screwing them up, I think. That and the ISI. Bastions of radical Islam, both of them. If they could get a hold of those two actors, they might have a fighting chance. So I guess the question is: is there a tipping point beyond which the actions of radical Islamic movements cease compelling behavior and begin to produce indignation and the will to response? Looks like that could be happening in Iraq (though the results are most certainly not in on that score yet). I'd be curious to know where that point will come (in any place). Also, I'm curious what other environmental factors might contribute.
On a procedural note:
I think that sometimes it's helpful to remind all players that some dangers apply both ways (another example besides partisan rhetoric would be ends-justify-means reasoning). I meant that as a general exhortation, not a specific accusation.
________________________________________________________________________
- 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
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
(Also, the fact that the conversation has devolved into a game of "you-people-are-all-idiots" is a good example of both why I hate the current state of American politics, and why I come ever closer to putting these boards behind me. Left and right, Republican and Democrat--we can't even talk about the issues anymore. Pathetic. What's wrong with us?)
tomorrow!
Damn straight!
*edited for politeness
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I edited that out to keep down the inflammation. 
You know, like I said it's only a feeling, but honestly I think a tipping point HAS been reached. I'll look into it some more, hopefully I'll have something more than a "gut reaction" to go on.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I try to keep a realistic eye on what's REALLY going on. (For example, part of the reason why Iraq is settling down is because it IS being partitioned... something I've advocated for years.) And I have a strange feeling that this might be a turning point for Pakistan: That it might reject both authoritarian rule AND Muslim extremists. Five or ten years from now, when Pakistanis look back, they might mark this as the signal event of change.
It's interesting that sometimes what you really need is an horrific event that galvanizes people into action--regretable but, I think, true. I think that's the real failing of terrorism. Up to a point it can be very effective: the instinct to preserve one's own life can be a powerful motivator. But there's a line that, once crossed, causes people to cease complying out of self-preservation and to resist the aggressor out of a desire to preserve something greater than the self (which is, I think, one of the things that makes humanity great). But I digress. In the case of Pakistan, I just wonder if the assassination of Bhutto will be that line beyond which violence no longer compels compliance. How exciting if a Muslim country threw off both theocracy and autocracy on its own!
________________________________________________________________________
- 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
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:You're joking, right? You think Pakistan doesn't have harsh interrogation already? My god, man, get your head out of your butt!
And maybe a little harsh interrogation could have prevented this.
What? You don't think a couple of those folks we picked up in Afganistan who are now sunning themselves down in Gitmo just might know somebody who knows somebody who had a little bit to do with this business.
Maybe if we waterboarded a little more and entertained appeals to the Supreme Court a little less...or maybe if we'd listened in on one more call...or tracked just one more bank transaction...or gotten just one more phone record from a telecommunications company. But alas no...for want of a nail and all that...
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:
here's a question I haven"t seen addressed either here, or in the national media, tho' it's early yet: Who was behind this? Who benefits?
“I am what the terrorists most fear,” she tells me, “a female political leader fighting to bring modernity to Pakistan. Now they’re trying to kill me."- Benazir Bhutto, November, 2007.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero
But alas no...for want of a nail and all that...
No power in the verse could have stopped this. She was DOA the minute she returned. I'm surprised it took this long.
Who killed her? Better question for that country is who didn't?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
I thought I'd raise a question about the death of Bhutto: will this strengthen the position of radical Islamists in Pakistani politics, or weaken it? IMHO, it could go either way.
I pretty much agree with 'either way'. If the Pakistani people believe this was the act of Islamic radicals and get pissed off enough, they could force the government to take some concrete action instead of just doing enough to keep the US aid coming. Or they could just roll over and let the radicals have their way. Too soon to tell.
This assumes that the "It was(pick one or more): Musharif, CIA, Jews, Club of Rome, Illuminati, India, etc." camp doesn't grab the lead.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
What? You don't think a couple of those folks we picked up in Afganistan who are now sunning themselves down in Gitmo just might know somebody who knows somebody who had a little bit to do with this business.
Maybe if we waterboarded a little more and entertained appeals to the Supreme Court a little less...or maybe if we'd listened in on one more call...or tracked just one more bank transaction...or gotten just one more phone record from a telecommunications company. But alas no...for want of a nail and all that...
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